Republicans break protocol to block bill expanding Social Security benefits

While many Republicans have called for protecting or even expanding Social Security benefits, Republican lawmakers have rejected a bill that would give millions of Americans higher monthly payments. Experts spoke to Newsweek about the possible motives behind the move.

House Democrats Garret Graves (R-LA) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) introduced a Social Security bill that would have repealed two rules that provided lower benefits for certain retirees.

Although the bill previously received broad bipartisan support and Graves and Spanberger secured the 218 signatures needed to advance the bill to the House floor, the Freedom Caucus blocked the bill's passage.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) received unanimous approval to bring the Social Security bill to the floor. This violated protocol and resulted in the bill remaining dormant for the time being. To pass it, lawmakers would have to vote under relief provisions.

Or a new bill could be introduced with similar policies for Social Security recipients currently affected by the Deadweight Elimination Provision (WEP) and the State Pension Adjustment (GPO).

These provisions reduce Social Security benefits in proportion to a beneficiary's pension amount, affecting individuals receiving pensions from employment not covered by Social Security.

Newsweek emailed Graves and Harris for comment.

If implemented, the law would have cost $196 billion over 10 years, while the Social Security Administration already faces a funding deficit that would reduce benefits as early as 2035.

“I think Republicans have blocked this bill to delay any changes until they reach a majority in the House or Senate,” said Kevin Thompson, a financial expert and founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group Newsweek. “While they cited the cost of the package as a reason, the timing suggests a possible strategic move to maintain control.”

For many current Social Security recipients, WEP and GPO deduct thousands of dollars from their annual benefit amount, and many of them are retired public employees, former police officers, teachers and nurses.

“The GPO and WEP are intended to prevent recipients from receiving more than their entitled share of benefits. To be clear, they do not reduce benefits for those who are fully eligible for Social Security and retirement benefits. If someone hasn't paid into Social Security.” “You shouldn't expect full Social Security and retirement benefits at the same time,” Thompson said.

Alex Beene, a financial literacy lecturer at the University of Tennessee at Martin, said it was unclear whether the bill's introduction was because lawmakers were opposed to the idea or wanted to introduce a new bill in its place in the future.

“The bill in question extended Social Security benefits to a small group that has historically been excluded due to provisions combining those benefits with additional pensions of workers in certain areas,” Beene said Newsweek.

He added: “The proposal was well received and received cross-party support, making it all the more puzzling not to address it for now. The hope is that the decision to put it on the table for now will lead to it being offered in a different form in the future. The benefits the recipients would receive would be of great help to them in the bloated economic times we are currently experiencing.”