A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal Social Security rules that apply to public employees. What might occur next?

• Individuals who have pension income may see their Social Security benefits reduced.
• Some Washington lawmakers are pushing to change that.
• Eliminating the government pension offset and windfall elimination provision may not necessarily make the program's benefits fairer, according to experts.

Congress is increasingly showing bipartisan support for a vote on a bill concerning Social Security, a topic that is typically shied away from.

The Social Security Fairness Act would eliminate two rules that lower Social Security benefits for workers, spouses, widows, and widowers who also receive pension income.

On Tuesday, Reps. Abigail Spanberger and Garret Graves filed a discharge petition to compel a vote on the bill in the House.

According to Spanberger's office, the petition currently has 172 signatures out of the 218 required for a vote, with 25 of those signatures belonging to Republicans.

The Social Security Fairness Act may pass if it is brought to the House floor, as there are currently 327 co-sponsors supporting the proposal.

The bill has broad support in the Senate, with 62 co-sponsors.

The 'vibecession' is ending as the U.S. economy nails a soft landing.

Federal, state, county, and municipal government employees, as well as police, firefighters, teachers, and postal workers, have also supported the initiative.

Experts predict that despite the momentum, passing the bill into law will not be straightforward.

The Senate and House have a lot of work to do before the end of the year due to a time constraint, as stated by Emerson Sprick, associate director for the economic policy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Eliminating the government pension offset and windfall elimination provision may not make the program's benefits fairer, he said.

The WEP is "deeply, incredibly misunderstood," which contributes to calls to eliminate the rule, according to Sprick.

How the WEP and GPO work

Individuals who receive pension or disability benefits from employment that did not require them to contribute payroll taxes to the program have their Social Security benefits reduced due to the windfall elimination provision.

According to the legislative proposal, over 2 million workers will be impacted by the WEP.

Pension income reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows, and widowers who also receive government pensions.

More than 745,000 Americans are affected by the GPO.

The sudden drop in income can be a surprise and force individuals to confront challenging choices.

During a Wednesday Senate hearing, Roger Boudreau, president of the Rhode Island American Federation of Teachers Retirees Chapter, mentioned a 75-year-old schoolteacher who continues to work due to concerns about her financial stability upon retirement.

If she retires and starts collecting her pension benefits, her Social Security income may disappear, and her pension benefits may not be enough to live on, Boudreau said.

Boudreau stated that she is essentially a slave to her job due to the government pension offset.

Why eliminating current rules may be problematic

A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that completely eliminating WEP and GPO could result in disproportionately generous benefits for workers who only pay Social Security taxes for a portion of their careers.

The income replacement formula for Social Security benefits is more generous for low earners compared to higher earners, resulting in progressive benefits.

Pension-covered workers who have contributed fewer years to Social Security may appear as low earners to the program, but this can result in more generous benefits for them compared to those who have spent their entire careers contributing.

The WEP and GPO rules aim to ensure that individuals with a mix of covered and non-covered Social Security work are not unfairly favored, according to Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The windfall elimination provision affects Van de Water, a long-time federal employee who is now retired.

Van de Water stated that although these bills would benefit him, he still believes they're a bad idea.

The elimination of rules through the Social Security Fairness Act would also reduce the program's funds at a time when it is facing impending trust fund depletion dates, he stated.

Over 10 years, the estimated cost of repealing the Affordable Care Act is approximately $196 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests updating the current rules for Social Security benefits, such as introducing a new income replacement rate that takes into account total income, including spousal and survivor benefits.

The Bipartisan Policy Center has proposed modifying Social Security's benefit calculation to allocate benefits proportionally according to the portion of an individual's earnings throughout their lifetime that were contributed to the program.

"Sprick stated that the solution to the windfall elimination provision is not to repeal it, but rather to modify it, make it clear, and base it on the most recent data that the Social Security Administration has access to."

The Social Security Fairness Act remains a priority for lawmakers as they continue to fight for the elimination of current rules.

"Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., a Republican co-sponsor of the bill, stated at this week's Social Security hearing that the inequity in the system needs to be fixed by contacting your representative or senator to take action."