Retirement insights from a Colorado PERA perspective

A distant view shows a mountainous landscape with sloping peaks, green trees in the foreground, and a cloudy sky above.

Editor&#8217;s Note: In December 2024, Colorado PERA and the Fire &amp; Police Pension Association of Colorado sent a joint letter to Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, encouraging them to support the Social Security Fairness Act in the Senate. <a href="https://content.copera.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/COPERA-and-FPPA_Please-Support-Repeal-of-Provisions-in-Social-Security-WEP-and-GPO_12.13.24.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Read the letter</a>.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



In a historic first, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass a bill that aims to repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO), which can reduce Social Security benefits for Colorado PERA members and other public employees.



The bill, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/82" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="broken_link">H.R. 82</a>—also known as the Social Security Fairness Act—was introduced in early January 2023 and eventually gained the support of over 300 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Lawmakers didn’t take any significant action on the bill until September 2024, when sponsors Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Garret Graves (R-LA) filed what’s known as a discharge petition, seeking to move the bill out of committee and force a floor vote.



Despite an Election Day maneuver seeking to table the bill, House leadership put H.R. 82 to a vote on Tuesday, November 12. It passed by a vote of 327 to 75.



The bill&#8217;s fate now lies with the Senate as lawmakers have just days to pass legislation before the current Congress ends. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he intends to bring the bill up for a vote.



Some lawmakers have expressed concern about the bill’s cost; a recent <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-09/hr82.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">estimate from the Congressional Budget Office</a> found it would require nearly $200 billion in additional spending over the next decade to provide larger Social Security benefits to those affected.



<div class="wp-block-advgb-accordions advgb-accordions-b92c7005-29f3-41c5-8ad2-2a98b034c717 advgb-accordion-wrapper">
<div class="wp-block-advgb-accordion-item advgb-accordion-item" style="margin-bottom:15px"><div class="advgb-accordion-header" style="background-color:#000;color:#eee;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-radius:2px"><svg fill="#fff" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24"><path fill="none" d="M0,0h24v24H0V0z"></path><path d="M12,5.83L15.17,9l1.41-1.41L12,3L7.41,7.59L8.83,9L12,5.83z M12,18.17L8.83,15l-1.41,1.41L12,21l4.59-4.59L15.17,15 L12,18.17z"></path></svg><h4 class="advgb-accordion-header-title" style="color:inherit">What are WEP and GPO?</h4></div><div class="advgb-accordion-body" style="border-style:solid !important;border-width:1px !important;border-color:undefined !important;border-top:none !important;border-radius:2px !important">
Social Security benefits are designed to replace only some of a worker’s pre-retirement earnings, and lower-paid workers receive a larger replacement percentage than higher-paid workers. Prior to the WEP being enacted in 1983, non-Social Security government workers like PERA members would receive a larger-than-intended Social Security benefit because of those years in their earning record when they weren’t contributing to Social Security. The WEP was meant to remove that advantage.



The GPO applies to PERA retirees who also receive a Social Security spousal or widow(er) benefit and reduces the Social Security benefit by two-thirds of the PERA benefit. That’s because spousal and widow(er) benefits are considered “dependent” benefits and were meant to help spouses who stayed at home and depended on their working partner for financial support. According to the Social Security Administration, now that it is common for both spouses to work, the GPO requires the “dependent” benefit to be offset by the dollar amount of their own retirement benefit.



It’s important to note that a retiree’s PERA benefit will never be reduced to Social Security or other benefits. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://www.copera.org/retirees/benefit-basics-for-retirees/pera-and-social-security" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">PERA and Social Security</a>.
</div></div>
</div>



Federal lawmakers also voted on another WEP-related bill, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5342" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="broken_link">H.R. 5342</a>, which would have introduced a new formula for calculating Social Security benefit reductions rather than a full repeal. That bill failed on a vote of 175 to 225.



PERA On The Issues will continue to monitor legislation on this issue and we’ll post updates when available. Be sure to <a href="https://copera.org/pera-on-the-issues/subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">subscribe to our biweekly newsletter</a> to stay informed.

U.S. House Passes WEP/GPO Repeal Bill, Heads to Senate

Update: In November 2024, the House passed H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act. Please <a href="https://www.copera.org/pera-on-the-issues/u-s-house-passes-wep-gpo-repeal-bill-heads-to-senate">visit this page</a> for the latest.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



We often hear from Colorado PERA members who want to know if legislators have made any progress in their efforts to change two provisions of federal law that can reduce retirees’ Social Security benefits.



Because most PERA members do not participate in Social Security while working for a PERA employer, any Social Security benefit they earned from private-sector work may be affected by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) or the Government Pension Offset (GPO).



Those provisions have been part of federal law since the 1980s, but lawmakers in recent years have repeatedly sought to modify or repeal them without success.



<div class="wp-block-advgb-accordions advgb-accordions-505a0fe6-41e1-4105-b85d-38166d97884b advgb-accordion-wrapper">
<div class="wp-block-advgb-accordion-item advgb-accordion-item" style="margin-bottom:15px"><div class="advgb-accordion-header" style="background-color:#000;color:#eee;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-radius:2px"><svg fill="#fff" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24"><path fill="none" d="M0,0h24v24H0V0z"></path><path d="M12,5.83L15.17,9l1.41-1.41L12,3L7.41,7.59L8.83,9L12,5.83z M12,18.17L8.83,15l-1.41,1.41L12,21l4.59-4.59L15.17,15 L12,18.17z"></path></svg><h4 class="advgb-accordion-header-title" style="color:inherit">Why WEP and GPO exist</h4></div><div class="advgb-accordion-body" style="border-style:solid !important;border-width:1px !important;border-color:undefined !important;border-top:none !important;border-radius:2px !important">
Social Security benefits are designed to replace only some of a worker’s pre-retirement earnings, and lower-paid workers receive a larger replacement percentage than higher-paid workers. Prior to the WEP being enacted in 1983, non-Social Security government workers like PERA members would receive a larger-than-intended Social Security benefit because of those years in their earning record when they weren’t contributing to Social Security. The WEP was meant to remove that advantage.



The GPO applies to PERA retirees who also receive a Social Security spousal or widow(er) benefit and reduces the Social Security benefit by two-thirds of the PERA benefit. That’s because spousal and widow(er) benefits are considered “dependent” benefits and were meant to help spouses who stayed at home and depended on their working partner for financial support. According to the Social Security Administration, now that it is common for both spouses to work, the GPO requires the “dependent” benefit to be offset by the dollar amount of their own retirement benefit.



It’s important to note that a retiree’s PERA benefit will never be reduced to Social Security or other benefits. Learn more about <a href="https://www.copera.org/retirees/benefit-basics-for-retirees/pera-and-social-security" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">PERA and Social Security</a>.
</div></div>
</div>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">Where things stand</h4>



While federal lawmakers have introduced about a half-dozen bills this Congress that touch on the WEP and GPO issue, the one that has received the most attention and support is <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/82" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="broken_link">H.R. 82</a>, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023. Its counterpart in the Senate is <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/597" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="broken_link">S. 597</a>. Both bills were introduced in early 2023.



Other bills that seek to modify or repeal WEP and/or GPO include <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4583" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="broken_link">H.R. 4583</a> and <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2280" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="broken_link">S. 2280</a>—both known as the Social Security 2100 Act—which propose a number of changes to Social Security, including temporarily eliminating WEP and GPO. Those bills were introduced in July 2023.



In April 2024, the House Ways and Means Committee convened for <a href="https://www.ncpers.org/blog_home.asp?display=350" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">an informational hearing on the topic of WEP and GPO</a>. The meeting didn’t result in any action on the above bills, but lawmakers heard from a panel of experts on the effects the two provisions have on retired public employees and the potential impacts of any changes to Social Security. Testimony largely centered around the fact that the Social Security Administration now has better worker data and WEP/GPO formulas could potentially be updated, but the cost to make any changes would amount to billions of dollars over the next decade.



Neither Social Security Fairness Act bill has made forward progress in Congress, but they continue to gather support—H.R. 82 in particular has gained more than 300 cosponsors in the House. And in May, the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus threw its support behind the Social Security Fairness Act with its 62 members <a href="https://problemsolverscaucus.house.gov/media/press-releases/problem-solvers-back-legislation-to-guarantee-full-social-security-benefits-for-police-officers-firefighters-and-public-servants" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">endorsing the legislation</a>.



In September, bill sponsors Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Garret Graves (R-LA) filed what&#8217;s known as a discharge petition, seeking to move H.R. 82 out of committee and force a floor vote. That petition reached the required threshold of 218 signatures, allowing the sponsors to request a vote in the House of Representatives. With Congress in recess for the month of October, a vote could happen as soon as November, but even if it passes the House, the bill faces an uncertain future in Senate.



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">What’s next?</h4>



We can expect congressional lawmakers to continue discussing this issue. Even if none of the above bills see any meaningful action before the current Congress ends, legislators are likely to introduce new bills in the next Congress.



As we’ve seen repeatedly over the years, bills that seek to modify or repeal WEP and/or GPO face a steep uphill battle, with lawmakers often citing the cost of increased Social Security benefits as a significant hurdle to overcome. That’s especially true in the face of pessimistic forecasts of Social Security’s finances.



While the most recent projections are somewhat better than expected, Social Security’s cash reserves are still <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/06/social-security-expected-to-run-short-on-funds-in-2035-government-says.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">expected to be depleted in about a decade</a>. If that happens and Congress hasn’t taken any action, Social Security will be forced to begin reducing benefits, but experts expect lawmakers will take action to shore up the system’s finances before any benefit reductions are necessary. It’s possible that a package of reforms for Social Security could also include some changes to the WEP and GPO, but only time will tell.



One of the most effective forms of advocacy is for PERA members and retirees to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">contact their senators and representatives</a>&nbsp;in Congress to let them know how the WEP and GPO affect them, as this issue is will be decided at the federal level.



We’ll continue to monitor this issue and post any updates on PERA On The Issues when we can. To stay in the loop, be sure to <a href="https://www.copera.org/pera-on-the-issues/subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">subscribe</a> to our biweekly newsletter.

The Latest on Federal WEP/GPO Legislation

Editor&#8217;s note (June 7, 2023) : Since we published this article, more legislation has been introduced in Congress. <a href="https://peraontheissues.com/an-update-on-2023-wep-gpo-legislation/">Click here</a> for the latest.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Federal lawmakers seeking to repeal Social Security’s Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) are giving it another try this year.



U.S. Representatives Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Garrett Graves (R-LA) reintroduced the <a href="https://content.copera.org/an-update-on-2023-wep-gpo-legislation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Social Security Fairness Act of 2023</a> (H.R. 82) in January. A similar bill received widespread bipartisan support in 2022 but never made it to a floor vote. Bills that don’t pass expire at the conclusion of each Congress.



The <a href="https://content.copera.org/wep-gpo-bill-introduced-in-d-c/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">WEP and GPO</a>, which are part of federal law, can reduce Social Security benefits for recipients of public pensions like Colorado PERA that serve as a substitute for Social Security. It’s important to note that a person’s PERA benefit is never reduced due to Social Security or other benefits.



While some bills in recent years have aimed to modify one or both the WEP and GPO, H.R. 82 seeks to fully repeal both provisions. As of early February, the bill had nearly 150 cosponsors, two of whom are from Colorado: Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO-2) and Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO-6). The previous version of the bill received over 300 cosponsors, including four from Colorado.



Why hasn’t Congress taken any substantial action on WEP/GPO despite strong support? Essentially, it comes down to cost. Eliminating or changing the WEP/GPO provisions of Social Security would mean providing larger checks to benefit recipients, costing the system more money. Recent projections show the Social Security trust funds are <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58564" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">expected to be depleted in about a decade</a>, so it’s a tough sell.



Since major changes may be needed to shore up Social Security’s financial footing, it’s possible changes to WEP/GPO could be included in a larger reform package. But it’s not clear when or if that might happen.



What’s Colorado PERA doing about it? Since this is a federal issue to be determined by Congress, we encourage members and retirees to <a href="https://content.copera.org/bill-to-repeal-wep-gpo-reintroduced-in-congress/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">contact their members of Congress</a> to share their opinion about these provisions and how they affect them. PERA will continue to work with the Colorado General Assembly to ensure PERA is on-track to meet its funding goal in order to continue to provide current and future retirees with monthly income in retirement that cannot be outlived.



PERA On The Issues will continue to track any legislative action on WEP/GPO throughout the year. <a href="https://peraontheissues.com/subscribe/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Subscribe</a> to our biweekly newsletter for updates on this bill and other news related to public employee retirement.

Bill to Repeal WEP/GPO Reintroduced in Congress

Earlier in June, PERA Interim Executive Director Ron Baker sent a letter to Colorado’s Congressional delegation asking that they withhold support from potential legislation that could undermine public pension recovery efforts and recent pension reforms in Colorado and around the country.



Over the past eight years, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) has introduced legislation known as the <a href="https://www.copera.org/pera-corrects-the-record-about-proposed-federal-legislation-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Public Employee Pension Transparency Act (“PEPTA”)</a>. Rep. Nunes recently asked each member of Congress through a “Dear Colleague” letter to co-sponsor similar PEPTA legislation this session.



In his letter, Baker outlines a number of reasons why PEPTA is concerning for public pension plans in general and for Colorado PERA specifically.



<ul>
<li>The legislation would require public employee plans, including PERA, to report their pension liabilities and assets using an assumption that their investments will only earn the U.S. Treasury bonds interest rate. PERA’s $49 billion trust fund is a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity and other assets. Historically, these investments have earned a <a href="https://content.copera.org/pera-corrects-the-record-about-proposed-federal-legislation-2/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">rate in excess</a> of the legislation’s artificial benchmark. Any states and local governments associated with public plans that did not comply with this requirement would be stripped of their ability to issue federally tax-exempt bonds.</li>



<li>PEPTA is based on an assumption that many state and local retirement plans are headed toward insolvency and don’t share meaningful information about their financial condition. Each year, PERA produces a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, a voluminous data source available online. Further, PERA reports to three (soon to be four) legislative oversight committees during the interim session and the regular legislative session.</li>
</ul>



The letter also notes that PEPTA would not lower taxpayer costs, increase transparency, expand accountability, or improve understanding of state and local government retirement plans.



PERA staff will continue to monitor the progress of PEPTA and other federal legislation that could impact public pension plans or PERA members. PERA’s letter to Colorado’s Congressional Delegation is available <a href="https://peraontheissues.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/No-PEPTA-Letter-to-Congressman-Lamborn_06-20-2018.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

PERA corrects the record about proposed federal legislation

From health care to pensions to taxes, 2017 has been an active year for Congress. Although most of these pieces of legislation have yet to pass, PERA continues to closely monitor their progress.



<a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">H.R. 173 – Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2017</a> Introduced on January 26, 2017, H.R. 173 would repeal the 40 percent excise tax (also referred to as the “<a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Cadillac Tax</a>”) on certain high-cost health plans created by the Affordable Care Act. The tax, currently scheduled to begin in 2020, would affect anyone who has some or all of their health care costs paid for by their employers beyond a set threshold. According to <a href="http://www.fightthe40.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Fight the 40</a>, a coalition of private and public sector groups who are opposed to it, roughly 82 percent of employers expect the tax to affect them within the first five years, and 178 million Americans rely on employer-sponsored health care. The bill has not yet been assigned to any committee and likely will not be voted on during the current Congress, but it has picked up 208 cosponsors, including Colorado Reps. Mike Coffman (R-06) and Ed Perlmutter (D-07).



<a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">H.J. Res. 66 – Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by states for non-governmental employees</a> This resolution, which became law when President Trump signed it in May, prevented the Department of Labor’s rule allowing state governments to create retirement savings systems for private sector employees exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Several states have already created such plans, and <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/03/retirement/state-retirement-plans-senate/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="broken_link">officials in at least one</a> state (Oregon) have said the rule’s revocation will not necessarily halt them from implementing their plans. A bill introduced earlier this year in the Colorado Legislature that would have created a similar system failed in the state Senate, and it remains unclear what the passage of H.J. Res. 66 will portend for future state efforts to create retirement savings systems for private sector residents who lack access to them.



<a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule</a> This rule from the Obama Administration would have required financial advisers to be fiduciaries to their clients, meaning they would have been legally required to act in their clients’ best interests. <a href="https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20171127-0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Just this past Monday</a>, the Department finalized a rule that will delay the implementation of its main provisions from going into effect on January 1, 2018, to July 1, 2019. While this delay does not necessarily mean the end of the rule, <a href="http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20171127/FREE/171129942/delay-of-dol-fiduciary-rule-enforcement-mechanisms-now-final" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" class="broken_link">proponents</a> of the fiduciary requirements say it’s all but certain the rule will never be fully implemented.



<a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">S. 915</a> and <a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">H.R. 1205 – Social Security Fairness Act of 2017</a> The latest attempt by members of Congress to repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) provisions of Social Security were introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL-13) in February. As previously mentioned in <a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">PERA on the Issues</a> when the bills were introduced, while Congress has long been searching for a solution to making WEP and GPO more fair for public employees who collect partial Social Security benefits, their outright repeal faces a difficult road ahead since it will have a negative impact on the financial condition of the already troubled Social Security trust fund.



<a href="https://content.copera.org/financial-choice-act-repeal-dodd-frank/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">H.R. 10 – Financial CHOICE Act</a> This bill, which would drastically alter banking and financial regulations put in place following the 2008 global financial crisis, passed the House 233-186 on June 8, 2017. Public pension systems, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/investor-group-pension-funds-oppose-financial-choice-act-1495060509" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">including Colorado PERA</a>, wrote to members of Congress in May urging them to oppose the measure due to their concerns about the bill’s effects on protections for investment markets. Although there was no companion bill introduced in the Senate, one piece of H.R. 10—which dealt with transparency of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs)—passed out of the Senate, was approved by the House, and signed into law. It remains to be seen whether another bill will be introduced, or if Congress members will wait until 2018 to try again.



<a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">H.R. 1124 – State and Local Pensions Accountability and Security Act</a> Currently awaiting consideration by the House of Representatives, this bill would prohibit the use of federal money to fund depleted state and local pension systems in the event they enter insolvency. This measure was <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/358269167/Letter-to-Speaker-Ryan-090717" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">touted in a letter</a> to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) from Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC), who heads the <a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Republican Study Committee</a>. Although it appears unlikely the bill will gain any traction before the end of the current Congressional session, it has picked up nine cosponsors.



<a href="https://www.copera.org/2017-federal-legislation-update" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">H.R. 1 – Tax Cuts and Jobs Act</a> Arguably the biggest piece of legislation currently being considered by Congress, the first major overhaul of the U.S. tax code in more than 30 years passed the House on a vote of 227-205 on November 16, 2017. The Senate version of the bill is scheduled to have a hearing this week, and once passed will be reconciled with the House version in a conference committee. While retirement does not figure to play as large of a role in the legislation as originally thought (early versions of the bill were rumored to include “Rothification” of 401(k) contributions, among other potential retirement changes) public plan sponsors are closely monitoring a provision that would change how public retirement systems pay taxes on&nbsp;<a href="https://content.copera.org/retirement-roundup-pensions-are-keeping-promises/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">certain investment earnings</a>. Public pensions like PERA are not currently subject to the unrelated business income tax (UBIT) paid on certain income generated by companies in which public pensions have invested retirees’ dollars. While it’s possible the provision will be stripped away during the reconciliation process, legislators must abide by a budgeting requirement that the bill cost no more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years.



See PERA Executive Director Greg Smith’s <a href="https://peraontheissues.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Rep.-DeGette-re-Section-5001-of-H.R.-1-Letter-1.pdf">letter on UBIT</a> sent to members of the Colorado Congressional Delegation.

2017 federal legislation update

Last year, we reported on <a href="https://www.copera.org/social-security-fairness-act-2017-introduced">legislation Congress was considering</a> to reform the <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/wep.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Windfall Elimination Provision</a> (WEP) of Social Security. The bill ultimately stalled despite bipartisan support from over 100 members of Congress, legislative leaders, and stakeholders representing the public employees affected.



In late April, new legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate that would take-up WEP and <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10007.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Government Pension Offset</a> (GPO) reform efforts again. The <a href="https://content.copera.org/colorado-pera-social-security/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Social Security Fairness Act of 2017</a>, introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), would repeal both the WEP and the GPO. The bill, S.915, has been assigned to the Senate Finance Committee. Public employees who receive both public pension benefits and Social Security benefits are very familiar with both of these provisions, which, <a href="https://www.copera.org/social-security-fairness-act-2017-introduced" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">according to Pensions &amp; Investments</a>, affect the Social Security checks of more than two million public employees across the country. The legislation has gained bipartisan support once again, with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joining Sens. Brown, Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO). The WEP and GPO provisions affect most public employees in all of the states (aside from Wisconsin) represented by those Senators.



One sticking point with the possible repeal of the WEP and GPO is the affect it would have on the Social Security trust fund. Last year’s <a href="https://www.copera.org/social-security-fairness-act-2017-introduced" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">H.R. 711</a> was estimated to be neutral in terms of its impact to the trust, but it did not constitute a full WEP repeal. It remains to be seen if S. 915 would negatively impact the Social Security trusts.



Stay tuned for more information, and potential opportunities to reach out to Colorado Senators Bennet and Gardner regarding this bill.

Tag Archives:

U.S. House Passes WEP/GPO Repeal Bill, Heads to Senate

The Latest on Federal WEP/GPO Legislation

Bill to Repeal WEP/GPO Reintroduced in Congress

PERA corrects the record about proposed federal legislation

2017 federal legislation update

Social Security Fairness Act of 2017 Introduced

Subscribe to PERA On The Issues