Republicans Break Protocol to Kill Social Security Benefits Expansion Bill

While many Republicans have called to protect or even expand Social Security benefits, GOP lawmakers killed a bill that would help millions of Americans get higher monthly payments. Experts spoke with Newsweek about the possible motives behind the move.

A Social Security bill that would have repealed two rules that lower benefits for certain retirees was brought forward by House Reps. Garret Graves, (R-LA) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA).

Despite the bill previously having a wide range of bipartisan support and Graves and Spanberger securing the 218 signatures needed to bring the law to the House floor, the Freedom Caucus blocked the bill on its path to being passed.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) got unanimous consent to lay the Social Security bill on the table. This broke protocol and is causing the bill to be dormant for now. To get it passed, lawmakers would have to vote under discharge regulations.

Or a new bill could be introduced with similar guidelines for Social Security beneficiaries currently impacted by the windfall elimination provision (WEP) and government pension offset (GPO).

These provisions reduce Social Security benefits in proportion to a beneficiary’s pension amount, which impacts individuals who receive pensions from employment not covered by Social Security.

Newsweek reached out to Graves and Harris for comment via email.

The law, if implemented, would have cost $196 billion across the span of 10 years at the same time that the Social Security Administration is already facing a funding shortfall that would reduce benefits by as early as 2035.

“I believe Republicans blocked this bill to delay any changes until they achieve a House or Senate majority,” Kevin Thompson, a finance expert and the founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group, told Newsweek. “While they cited the package’s cost as the reason, the timing suggests a possible strategic move to maintain control.”

For many current Social Security recipients, the WEP and GPO take thousands of dollars from their yearly benefit amount, and many of these are retired public service workers, former police officers, teachers and nurses.

“The GPO and WEP are designed to prevent beneficiaries from receiving more than their entitled share of benefits. To clarify, they don’t reduce benefits for those fully entitled to both Social Security and pension benefits. If someone hasn’t paid into Social Security, they shouldn’t expect full Social Security and pension benefits simultaneously,” Thompson said.

Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, said it’s unclear if laying the bill on the table was due to lawmakers being against the idea or wanting to introduce a new bill in its place in the future.

“The bill in question expanded Social Security benefits to a small group that had been excluded in the past due to provisions on combining those benefits with additional pensions from workers in certain fields,” Beene told Newsweek.

He added: “The proposal was a popular one and gained bipartisan support, which makes not addressing it for the time being even more puzzling. The hope is the decision to table it for now will result in it being offered in another form in the future. The benefits recipients would gain would greatly assist them in the inflated economic times we find ourselves in currently.”