AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.

Changes in Social Security to impact public employers and employees: new legislation designed to prevent fraud and abuse in the Social Security program has important implications for government employers and employees.(Federal Focus)

Government Finance Review

| August 01, 2004 | Berger, Barrie Tabin | COPYRIGHT 2004 Government Finance Officers Association. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan.  All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)Copyright

On March 2, President Bush signed into law the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-203). While the legislation is primarily intended to reduce fraud and abuse in the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs, it impacts state and local government employers and their employees in several ways. Specifically, the new law closes the Government Pension Offset loophole; requires public employers to disclose to newly hired employees that they are earning retirement benefits not covered by Social Security; and allows Louisiana and Kentucky the option to provide a divided retirement system.

As the legislation was being considered, public sector organizations met with Congressional staff to limit any new disclosure requirements that would impose financial and administrative burdens on state and local employers, public pension plans, and employees. While they succeeded in eliminating some of the more burdensome mandates included in earlier versions of the legislation, the final version does impose some new disclosure requirements on state and local employers. The Social Security Administration will soon issue regulations for the implementation of the new disclosure requirements. Working in concert with other state and local employers, national organizations, pension system administrators, and employee unions, GFOA will closely review these regulations to ensure that they are not overly burdensome or costly to public employers, or biased in their explanation of uncovered employment.

This article summarizes the newly enacted legislation and discusses its impact on public employers and employees. It is important to note that the legislation does not require that all public employees participate in Social Security. It does, however, make some important changes to existing law. These changes are discussed below.

THE GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET

The GPO formula reduces by two-thirds the spousal and survivor Social Security benefits paid to most retired public employees for employment not covered by Social Security. For example, if you receive a monthly pension benefit of $600, two-thirds of that amount ($400) must be deducted from your spousal/survivor Social Security benefit. Thus, if you are eligible for a $500 spouse's, widow's, or widower's benefit from Social Security, you will instead receive $100 per month ($500-$400 = $100). You will also receive your monthly pension benefit of $600, which will not be affected.

Prior to the enactment of the new legislation, public employees in jobs not covered by Social Security could avoid the GPO provision by working the last day of their careers in jobs covered by both Social Security and the retirement system paying their pension. For example, before the enactment of Public Law 108-203, teachers who had spent the majority of their careers in school districts that did not provide Social Security coverage could take positions in school districts providing Social Security for as little as one day and avoid any reduction in spousal/survivor Social Security benefits.

Under the new law, which will cover retirements that occur on or after July 1, 2004, public employees wishing to avoid the two-thirds reduction in spousal/survivor benefits will be required to spend the last five years of their employment in positions covered by both Social Security and the retirement system that will pay their pensions. This provision, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to save the federal government $80 million over the next 10 years, will have implications for many public employees around the country. It will particularly affect teachers in Texas, who have taken advantage of the GPO loophole more than any other group in the country, according to a 2002 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office. Since Texas has some school districts in which non-teaching personnel are covered by Social Security, ...

Related articles from newspapers, magazines, journals, and more
IRS Offers Free Help to Public Employers.
Press release article from: Business Wire August 4, 1998 700+ words
...understanding their Social Security and Medicare...Since 1950, public employers have been able to provide Social Security coverage to...agreement with the Social Security Administration...wants to assist public employers by providing...
Social security numbers.(REGULATION WATCH)(Brief article)
Magazine article from: Los Angeles Business Journal Fine, Howard January 7, 2008 700+ words
...restricts employers from using the social security numbers of employees. Besides...or displaying an employee's social security number in public, employers also are banned from printing the social security number on any card required to...
Social security in the 105th Congress.
Magazine article from: Government Finance Review Harris, Jennifer D. April 1, 1997 700+ words
...would participate in Social Security. Subsequent Section...used to opt out of Social Security coverage for any group. In 1983, public employers were required to continue coverage under Social Security for any employees that...
California DB Plans Without Social Security Face Uncertainty.
Magazine article from: Investment Management Weekly February 21, 2005 700+ words
...participate in Social Security could face...concerns for both public employers and employees...participation in Social Security due to cost...participate in Social Security is the $1...retention tool for public employers are some of...
Public Employers Avoid 'Doom-and-Gloom' Messages to Boost Benefits Enrollment.
Press release article from: PR Newswire April 27, 2006 700+ words
...April 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Public employers can retain valuable staff...These are crucial issues for public employers who face a shrinking talent...about the possible failure of Social Security or other government programs...
Oregon's Public Employers Propose Ways to Ease Strain on Pension Fund.
Newspaper article from: Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News February 12, 2003 700+ words
...Tribune Business News Feb. 12--SALEM, Ore.--Public employers on Tuesday rolled out their proposal for easing the multibillion...percent to 90 percent of their salaries from pension and Social Security earnings, which is higher than state and national norms...
Proposed Legislation Would Require California Employers To Verify Employee's...
News wire article from: Mondaq Business Briefing March 26, 2007 700+ words
...to provide a valid social security number. Thus, the...true and correct social security information from...derives from receipt of social security numbers it will already...the Georgia law all public employers, as well as contractors...
States take the lead on immigration reform.(HR News)
Magazine article from: HRMagazine Deschenaux, Joanne August 1, 2007 700+ words
...Services division and the Social Security Administration. Although...employment by verifying Social Security numbers. Public employers must use Basic Pilot...screening. Georgia: Certain public employers and any contractors and...
For more facts and information, see all results
©2009 Gale, a part of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
About us | FAQs | Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms and conditions
Other Gale sites: Encyclopedia.com | HighBeam Research | Acquire Content | Books & Authors | Goliath | MovieRetriever | Smart QandA