LETTER: Social Security bill is overdue
I generally agree with the stands the Review-Journal takes in your editorials. I must take exception to your recent editorial on the two bills in Congress repealing the two provisions restricting benefits to individuals receiving Social Security payments and payments from a government agency.
Yes, this does affect my wife. She is collecting a pension from the Clark County School District and receives Social Security payments reduced by two-thirds of her gross pension from the district. She also loses the choice of receiving the greater of my Social Security benefits should I die first.
My wife receives annual pension payments from the school district of less than $20,000. Not only that, the real inflation rate is significantly higher than the annual “inflation adjustments.” An individual with a significantly higher pension payment from private industry, such as high-paid executives, doctors, union employees, etc., have no such restrictions. A person receiving annual pension payments from the private sector of $100,000 will receive full Social Security payments; a person receiving annual pension payments from a government agency of $100,000 will probably receive no Social Security payments. We often pay income tax on more than 50 percent of our Social Security income.
The federal government has been accused of raiding the assets in the Social Security accounts. H.R.82 passed by a vote of 327-75. I would hope that S.597 (or H.R.82) passes the Senate by a similar margin so as to remove this inequity that affects mostly middle-class individuals needing the funds to get by the most.