The House of Representatives could force a vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, which would repeal rules that currently reduce SS benefits for certain civil servants including teachers, police and firefighters.
The House of Representatives could force a vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, which would repeal rules that currently reduce SS benefits for certain civil servants including teachers, police and firefighters. Rep. Jim Himes (D- 4th District) explains how it could impact 22,000 retirees in Connecticut.
Mike Hydeck: Did you know when civil servants like teachers and firefighters and officers retire with a pension, the amount of Social Security they're allowed to collect is drastically reduced? Well, Congress is considering a bill to hopefully try to fix that. It's called the Social Security Fairness Act, and it may fix it, if it does indeed pass. Joining me now is Congressman Jim Himes to give us perspective on where all this goes. Congressman, welcome back to Face the Facts. Good to see you.
Jim Himes: Thanks for having me.
Mike Hydeck: So let's take a case in point. An officer or a teacher works for 25 years. They may have a side job to make some money there, but is it really that they can't collect the full amount of Social Security?
Get top local stories in Connecticut delivered to you every morning. Sign up for NBC Connecticut's News Headlines newsletter.
Jim Himes: Yeah, yeah, that's, that's one of those cases where somebody who is paying into Social Security, you know, having that withholding done from their paycheck every couple weeks or so may not get to see the value of that. Even more, I can give you an even sort of more difficult example. You know, somebody who decides they're going to go into law enforcement or teaching at age 35. Now, chances are good that for whatever 14,15 years, they've paid into Social Security, but now they're in a context where they are accruing a pension. In that situation, in particular, people can really suffer a loss of their Social Security benefits. This was all because, you know, a law was passed many, many years ago, well before my time here, to prevent people from double dipping. And the theory was that if you're collecting a big pension, you know, you shouldn't be collecting the full amount of the Social Security. But as a result, you know, you do have these unjust situations, and that is what this bill is trying to fix.
Mike Hydeck: So the Connecticut Mirror says, technically, this could help about 22,000 people here in Connecticut. Extrapolate that across the country. This is a big program that can cost a lot of money. It's not in good shape now, Social Security. Wouldn't that make the financial situation worse?
Jim Himes: Yeah, that's exactly right, and that's why I think this hasn't gotten done in a long time. I've been doing this for a little while, and, you know, teachers and others are in my office all the time saying, 'You got to fix this.' And the reason it hasn't gotten done is because, yes, it is quite expensive. You know, a lot more money going out. The estimate is that it could cost $180 billion over 10 years. That's why this has provoked a certain amount of consternation here on Capitol Hill. You know, probably our, Connecticut's reigning expert on Social Security, John Larson, has been very, very concerned, because he totally supports the fix, but he points out that over a 10 year period, this will cost $180 billion as I said. And the thing is, that's not just money that you can appropriate. It would be a little more complicated than that, because social security payments, of course, come out of the Social Security trust fund. So that $180 billion yes, it's a number, but what it translates into is it would, if we did this, which I hope we do, and I hope we find a fix for the money, if we did this, it would have a negative effect on the Social Security Trust Fund, which means that the day when Social Security Social Security can't pay out its full promise promised benefits, that day becomes a little closer.
Face the Facts
Face the Facts with NBC Connecticut goes beyond the headlines, asking newsmakers the tough questions, giving an in-depth analysis of the big stories.
Mike Hydeck: So then trying to fund it, he talked about lifting a certain cap. Do you think that's possible?
Jim Himes: Well, again, part of the reason that he's been a little concerned by these developments, and again, nobody knows more about Social Security than John Larson, is because he has a comprehensive plan that would extend the solvency of Social Security for many, many years, would deal with this issue and would also adjust the way Social Security brings in revenue. You know, on Social Security, you've got a couple of ways you can bring in more revenue, right? You can increase the percentage of withholding. You can increase the cap on which wages are no longer subject to that withholding. Some people propose eliminating that cap, because today, I forget the exact number, but today, if you make a certain amount of money, you no longer have Social Security withholding. And of course, you can play around with the with the retirement age, the age upon which you can draw benefits. And all of those things, of course, work together. Some of them have good attributes. Some of them have more challenging attributes. But John has a proposal that would comprehensively deal with with this challenge.
Mike Hydeck: Okay, I want to switch gears a little bit. Federal government is in danger of shutting down once again. We've been here before. The House put forward a bill. Didn't get very far. Where are we with that now?
Jim Himes: Yeah, I guess the headline there is, you know, we've seen this movie before. Thank goodness we haven't had a government shutdown now for many, many years. Most of the people around here who remember that government shutdown remember it as a really uncomfortable and ugly situation. You know, TSA agents at airports not getting paid, people not being able to use national parks, people not being able to sign up for Social Security. So my point is that most people around here understand that a government shutdown is a very painful and embarrassing thing, and as a consequence, I do not think the government is going to shut down. There's a couple of plans on board right now to get a budget extension passed next week. And while, you know, my institution has a couple of flame throwers that would love to welcome the chaos and the crazy, they're a pretty small minority going into November's election. So I think we're going to extend this thing next week and avoid a shutdown.
Mike Hydeck: Right. So Speaker Johnson put forth a bill some people say he knew wasn't going to get passed, so then he would have cover to negotiate with Democrats. Is this just political theater, or we're going to be out of the woods, do you think?
Jim Himes: I think it's political theater, but it's serious in particular for the speaker. You know, the speaker has a Freedom Caucus that is, shall we say, extremely demanding. And so I think the Speaker needed to show that he was going to try to bring something to the floor that included, of course, the sort of a silly thing, but an act that would prohibit undocumented aliens from voting. Well, lo and behold, it is already illegal in every single state for undocumented aliens to vote. The bill they put forward would have actually created all sorts of havoc for people who would have to confirm their citizenship, for women who changed their names in marriage. And so, yeah, predictably, that went down. He had to show his conservatives that he tried. And now, you know, now he's going to do what he does every time he needs to pass something, which is work out a good bipartisan bill that will achieve support in both parties.
Mike Hydeck: Congressman Jim Himes, we have to leave it there. We appreciate your time this morning. Thanks for joining us on Face the Facts.
Jim Himes: Thanks so much.
