by Jim Preston
The web site I would like a
link to is: www.grandlodgefop.org
The legislative update
information is important to all officers.
Our officers may not know
that even after they retire and pay into the Social Security system through 40
quarters (10 years) their Social Security benefit is reduced by 60% because
they are receiving a TPD pension. The
benefit their spouse may be entitled to is also reduced by 2/3’s. Even though they paid taxes into the system
they may never get back the full benefit everyone in private employment is
entitled to just because they are getting that TPD pension. There is a bill before Congress H.R. 594
which would repeal these provisions. I
urge every officer to contact their
Here is an example of the
social security issue. This article was
printed in the National FOP Journal.
______________________
On
As a result of that testimony
and a concerted effort by the National Legislative Office, twenty-eight (28)
additional cosponsors were added to the bill, bringing our current total to two
hundred and ten (210). This exceeds last
year’s total of one hundred and eighty-five (185) cosponsors and means that we
are only eight (8) cosponsors shy of having a House majority.
The following is an excerpt
of President Canterbury’s testimony:
The FOP contends that this
provision has a disparate impact on law enforcement officers for several
reasons. First of all, law enforcement
officers retire earlier than employees in many other professions. Owing to the physical demands of the job, a
law enforcement officer is likely to retire between the ages of 45 and 60. Secondly, after 20 or 25 years on the job,
many law enforcement officers are likely to begin second careers and hold jobs
that do pay into the Social Security system.
Even more officers are likely to “moonlight” (extra duty jobs) that is,
hold second or even third jobs throughout their law enforcement career in order
to augment their income. This creates an
unjust situation that too many of our members find themselves in: they are
entitled to a State or local retirement benefit because they worked 20 or more
years keeping their streets and neighborhoods safe, and also worked at a job or
jobs in which they paid into Social Security, entitling them to that benefit as
well. However, because of the Windfall
Elimination Provision (WEP), if their second career resulted in less than
twenty (20) years of substantial earnings, upon reaching the age they are
eligible to collect Social Security, they will
discover that they lose sixty percent (60%) of the benefit for which they were
taxed! Actuarially speaking, I doubt
many officers will live long enough to “break even”, that is collect
the money they paid into the system – let alone receive any “windfall”. These men and women earned their State or
local retirement benefit as public employees and they paid Social Security
taxes while employed in the private sector.
How is this a windfall?
The other aspect of the McKeon bill H.R. 594 would repeal the Government Pension
Offset (GPO). In 1977, Federal
legislation was enacted that required a dollar for dollar reduction of Social
Security spousal benefits to public employees and retired public employees who
received earned benefits from a Federal, State, or local retirement system. Following a major campaign to repeal the
provisions in 1983, Congress, which was looking for ways to reduce the fiscal
pressure on the Social Security system, adopted instead the Government Pension
Offset, which limits the spousal benefits reduction to two-thirds of a public
employee’s retirement system benefits.
This remedial step falls far short of addressing the inequity of Social
Security benefits between public and private employees. This “offset” provision should have been
repealed in 1983 and might have been were it not for the fiscal condition of
the Social Security system.
The new GPO formula reduces
the spouse’s or widow(er)’s benefit from Social
Security by two0thirds of the monthly amount received by the government
pension. For example, the spouse of a
retired law enforcement officer who, at the time of his or her death, was
collecting a government pension or $1,200, would be
ineligible to collect the surviving spousal benefit of $600 from Social
Security. Two-thirds of $1,200 is $800,
which is greater than the spousal benefit of $600 and thus, under this law, the
spouse is unable to collect it. If the
spouse’s benefit were $900, only $100 could be collected, because $800 would be
“offset” by the officer’s government pension.
In nine out of ten cases,
this completely eliminates the spousal benefit even though the covered spouse
paid Social Security taxes for many years, thereby earning the right to these
benefits. It is estimated that
approximately 349,000 spouses and widow(er)’s of
State and local employees have been unfairly affected by the Government Pension
Offset. Moreover, these estimates do not
capture those public employees or retirees who never applied for spousal
benefits because they wrongly believed themselves ineligible. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
the GPO reduces
benefits for some 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a
year. Ironically, the loss of these
benefits may cause these men and women to become eligible for more costly
Federal assistance.
The present system creates a
tremendous inequity in the distribution of Social Security benefits. The standard for this narrow class of
individuals – retired public employees who are surviving spouses of retirees
covered by Social Security – is inconsistent with the overall provisions of the
Social Security Act and does not apply to persons receiving private pensions benefits.
This imbalance exists even though Congress, through ERISA standards and
tax code provisions, has more direct influence over private employers than
public employers. Clearly this is an
issue that Congress must address.
_____________________________
Links to Florida Congressmen and Senators so you can
send them email:
http://www.aidsstories.com/states/fl.html
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Den/7179/FL.htm