Originally published July 5 2005
Caught between pension plans, some retirees see less Social Security
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Because of a fundamental inequity in the federal pension program, a career change could cost you about 40 percent of the Social Security benefits you've earned during your lifetime.
Al Nelson proudly served the United States as a soldier for 20 years.
"I don't think so," said Nelson, who is urging President Bush, Congress and anyone else involved in shaping public policy to correct what many people say is a fundamental inequity in the nation's pension system.
Nelson is one of perhaps 700,000 people whose retirement incomes are tangled in red tape that was intended in the 1980s to align public-service pensions more closely with Social Security.
The remaining jobs are predominantly teachers, firefighters, police officers and other government workers whose employers opted out of Social Security coverage.
Employees or retirees in the Civil Service Retirement System instead of the newer Federal Employees Retirement System.
Contact your U.S. senator or House member to make your views known.
By 1982, federal lawmakers were working to narrow the differences and to relieve budget pressures on the retirement system by switching more government workers into Social Security-covered plans.
The first tool was the government-pension offset, or GPO, which reduces a widowed spouse's potential Social Security benefits by two-thirds if the partner received pension payments from a non-Social Security plan.
The second was the windfall-elimination provision, or WEP, which uses a formula to cut Social Security pension benefits by about 40 percent for retirees who also get pension checks from a non-Social Security plan.
Retirees such as Nelson, and groups such as the National Education Association, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, and the AFL-CIO's American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees want the WEP and GPO repealed.
Plus, repealing the provisions would be a major change that would be more appropriate to consider along with other changes under discussion for strengthening and protecting the system, Barnhart said.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml