If anyone wishes to understand the financial decline of Social Security, look no further than the “Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2023,” a bill introduced by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX) that would reward the special interests of today at the expense of future retirees.

At this point, Social Security has made $22 trillion in promises that it does not expect to keep. This is a serious problem, one that comes at least in part from lawmakers who spend the money reserved for Social Security on constituents today without giving sufficient thought to how to cover these costs in the future.

Supporters of this legislation argue that the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) of Social Security should be replaced because it treats those who have devoted much of their careers to public service unfairly. 

In reality, this change simply boosts benefits for those who can vote today at the expense of voters in the future. If the concept of “equal protection” meant anything, it would ensure that future retirees are treated the same as current ones. 

If passed, this legislation would replace the calculation in 2068. That is 45 years from now. So, the legislation would fix the calculation for those who are currently 17 years old and younger. In the meantime, the legislation would reward current voters, leaving a bill to be paid by someone else in the far distant future. 

For example, someone who is 60 years old and subject to the WEP today would collect $100 per month, roughly double what the experts at the Social Security Administration believe that they may have lost from the suspected unfairness of the rule. The delay means that someone as young as 18 years old today could collect more than their contributions have earned.

Over just the next 10 years, the changes in this legislation would cost Social Security $25 billion. Of course, this money has to come from somewhere. 

So, who would pay for equality? Ironically enough, the tab for the largesse of today would be paid by the hard-working public servants of the future, specifically those who aren’t even subject to the WEP today. The legislation broadens the scope of WEP from those who collect pensions earned in jobs not covered by Social Security to people who happen to have worked for a state and local government. 

For example, the hardworking teacher who may have moved to another state before reaching the eligibility required by the pension plan at work. This person would have his or her Social Security check reduced for a pension that they did not collect. Given the numbers from the Social Security Administration, Arrington wants to fix the calculation for one million by breaking it for 18 million other retirees. This is crazy.

There are currently three different proposals in Congress that address the WEP in some form. They all share one characteristic: Give more to current voters and allow future voters to pick up the cost. In comparison to its competitors to dole out pork, $25 billion is actually thrifty.

The sponsors of this legislation might argue that this sum is but a drop in the $22 trillion bucket of empty promises. It is the Dirkson syndrome: a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, you're talking real money. Social Security has made more than $22 trillion in promises that it does not expect to keep. That is real money.

There is, in fact, a simple solution to the problem at hand. There are 50 states, some of which believe that they are inherently more capable of running a pension than Social Security. In these cases, the state needs to reach a benefits portability agreement with the Social Security Administration. 

Portability means that someone who has a state and local pension could transfer their contributions to Social Security to the state pension for more benefits. Maybe the employee wants to collect from Social Security, in which case the state would pay Social Security to buy credits for the employee.

In the end, the individual picks the best pension for them without creating a $25 billion problem for the rest of us to clean up.

Brenton Smith ([email protected]) is a policy advisor with The Heartland Institute.