News
Debate over pension provisions
By Alyssa Rosenberg
arosenberg@govexec.com
January 16, 2008
Witnesses and members of Congress debated issues of fairness at a Wednesday hearing on the
impact of the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision on vulnerable workers,
including federal employees.
"These rules were intended to help treat workers across employment sectors equitably," said
Rep. Michael McNulty, D-N.Y., chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. "But
many of the approximately 1 million individuals whose benefits are affected by these provisions
believe the GPO and WEP are unfair."
Members of Congress indicated that they had a fine balance to preserve. "To repeal these two
provisions of the law would be to give an unfair bonus to those who work in jobs not covered by
Social Security," said Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, ranking member of the subcommittee.
David Rust, acting deputy commissioner for disability and income security programs at the
Social Security Administration, echoed that concern. He said the GPO, which reduces spousal
benefits by two-thirds of the amount that workers not covered by Social Security receive in their
own pensions, was a fair recognition that both spouses had helped support each other.
"The GPO provision removed an advantage that some government workers had," Rust said. "A
person who worked in a government job that was not covered under Social Security could receive, in
addition to a government pension based on his or her own earnings, a full Social Security spouse's
or surviving spouse's benefit."
Laura Haltzel, a specialist in social legislation at the Congressional Research Service, said
while concerns about fairness might be justified, GPO might not be the most accurate way to
allocate benefits fairly. "Many agree that reducing everyone's spousal benefit by two-thirds of
their government pension is an imprecise way to estimate what the spousal benefit would be had the
government job been covered by Social Security," she said. "This procedure has uneven results, and
some believe it is especially disadvantageous for surviving spouses and low-paid workers."
Representatives of federal employee associations argued in written submissions to the
committee that GPO and WEP presented serious issues of fairness to government employees, especially
women.
Rhonda Trent, president of the advocacy group Federally Employed Women, said both provisions
had a disproportionate impact on female federal retirees who earned less than their male
counterparts and relied more heavily on retirement benefits for their financial security. In
addition, he argued, it was unfair to penalize people who worked for the government.
"The victims of GPO are largely elderly women who are both [Civil Service Retirement System]
annuitants and widows of private sector employees," Trent wrote in testimony to the subcommittee.
"Many of these women worked in lower grade/salaried positions and the loss of the Social Security
benefit causes a major financial hardship. Had these women spent their careers anywhere but the
federal government, they would be entitled to full, unreduced Social Security spousal or survivor
benefits."
Trent cited Social Security data that found that the average offset was $138 more a month for
women than for men. Margaret Baptiste, president of the National Active and Retired Federal
Employees' Association, noted that the GPO affects 401,200 Social Security beneficiaries, 75
percent of whom are women and about 42 percent of whom have lost their spouses.
Rust said some provisions of the calculations were intended to help women, including those
that gave low earners a higher proportion of their pre-retirement incomes, and that Congress had
raised the level of payments to widows and widowers over time.
"NARFE is pleased that Congressmen McNulty and Johnson are using their positions on the
Social Security subcommittee to investigate unjust Social Security policies that undermine the
earned retirement benefits of more than a million public servants," Baptiste said. But, she added,
the organization was looking for action in addition to investigations.
"Federal retirees expect this Congress to finally overturn these laws, which are denying many of our nation's public servants an adequate retirement," Baptiste said.