When I found him this morning in the booth in the back in the corner in the dark at John Wayne Culpepper’s Lip-Smackin’ Bar-B-Que House and Used Lightbulb Emporium in Watson, Louisiana, Harley Purvis was in his usual mood, i.e. nasty.
The Greater Livingston Parish All-American Redneck Male Chauvinist Spittin’, Belchin’, and Cussin’ Society and Literary Club (LPAARMCSBCSLC) had scheduled an emergency meeting for 10 a.m. and only two of the six members (that would be Harley and me) had arrived. As president, Harley was not one to brook tardiness.
But there was something else on his mind today as I slid into the booth opposite him. I can always tell the degree of his consternation by the amount of coffee he’d consumed and the condition of the day’s newspaper. Today, I could tell he was on at least his fourth cup and the Baton Rouge Advocate looked as though a squirrel had chosen today’s edition for a nest.
You don’t rush Harley when something is weighing on his mind. He will speak when he’s ready, so I ordered a cup of John Wayne’s high-octane coffee brewed from yesterday’s leftover grounds that went down more like Number Two West Texas Crude. And I waited.
Finally he spoke.
“If you want to sum up the complete worthlessness of Congress, I can do it in two sentences,” he said.
“Based on my current income, if I retire at 65, I will qualify for about $3,500 per month in social security.”
That surprised me because I never knew Harley made that kind of income, let alone reported it to Uncle Sam. He went on.
“My wife, Wanda Bob, is a school teacher and a damn good-‘un but if I die before her, she will get maybe a couple hundred bucks a month in Social Security spousal benefits.”
“Wait, what?” I managed to stammer. Two sentences and I was floored.
“That’s right. Because Louisiana is one of 15 states in which have their own retirement systems and in which public employees do not participate in social security, there’s this thing called the Government Pension Offset (GPO) passed way back in the Carter administration.”
“Government Pension Offset?”
“Yeah. Stay with me. It was passed in 1977 and it’s called the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). It was passed ostensibly to prevent double dipping but as usual, it was passed without any real consideration of the consequences and it turned out to be a penalty for public service like the teaching profession.”
“A penalty? How so?”
“Simple. If she’d worked in the private sector at something like banking or a CPA, she would be entitled to my full Social Security benefits if I died first. Hell, even if she didn’t work at all and was a stay-at-home mom and housewife, she’d still be entitled to my full benefits. But because she chose to work as a teacher, she will penalized if I die first. Does that seem fair to you?”
I had to admit it didn’t. I asked him why something hadn’t been done to correct this egregious injustice. I should have known better than to ask.
“Hell, I can give you 535 reasons right up front!” he exploded. “That’s the 435 House members and the 100 Senators. They don’t give a rat’s patooty about us. Never have, never will. It’s like everything else they do: they give lip service but never follow through. Every member of Congress, with the possible exception of Clay Higgins and Ted Cruz is fully aware of this but they continue to sit on their butts and do zero about it. And they wonder why they have such low approval ratings.
“They’ve had bills introduced for years to do away with the WEP and enough members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors because it looks great to the folks back home. The problem is, they won’t bring it up for a vote. That’s their way to come back home when they run for re-election and to tell the good voters that they tried to help them but couldn’t get other members to go along. That’s crap but it works and they can then concentrate on raising campaign funds and catering to the special interest. Meanwhile, we’re left holding the bag.”
“What can we do about it?” I naively asked.
“Not a damned thing! You think Garrett Graves or Mike Johnson or John Kennedy or Bill Cassidy has ever given a thought to this? Hell no, there’s no campaign contributions to go with it. And Clay Higgins is such a dumbass he wouldn’t know unless it was an NRA issue. He thinks GPO stands for Guns and Preemptive Ops and WEP stands for Weapons of Extreme Prejudice.”
“That’s pretty strong,” I said, taking a sip of my now-cold coffee.
“Well, I stand by it. There are 46,000 public school teachers in Louisiana and some 60,000 other state employees and the same rules apply each one whose spouse works in the private sector and pays into Social Security. I’d guess at least 75,000 or 80,000 are adversely impacted by this B.S.
“You tell me if you think it’s fair for me to pay into Social Security all my working life, die a few months after retirement and my widow get nothing? That’s money I paid into the system and because she chose to become a teacher and worked to enrich the minds of children by teaching them to think and reason, she’s entitled to nothing. Meanwhile, my next door neighbor’s wife who chose to stay home and not work is entitled to her husband’s benefits after he dies. Is that fair?”
I had to admit it wasn’t. And he was correct: he had summed up the complete worthlessness of Congress in two sentences.
I wanted to ask more questions but two more members of LPAARMCSBCSLC had arrived, giving us a quorum. Harvey, as president, pounded his gavel, bringing the meeting to order.
Louisiana Voice 
I’m sure Harley knows that WEP also applies to our other state retirement systems and that people who qualify under Social Security and state retirement (having worked enough quarters under Social Security before or after state service) have their Social Security benefits reduced or eliminated, Some consider this fair, but it is difficult for anybody to consider its effects on survivors benefits, as in Harley’s wife’s case, to be.
I have worked for 4 employers that had 401K plans in which I participated. Not only did I not get penalized in a latter plan for having participated in an earlier plan, but I was eligible (and even encouraged) to roll-over my prior plan balance to my current employer’s plan. If it is fair and makes sense to governments to have my old age needs met with former employer’s and my own funds, then why can’t both federal and state governments see that keeping my old age financial needs, both current income and medical, met with funds in which I contributed rather than cutting those funds which forces me to use Welfare and Medicaid funds to which I have contributed nothing? The potential old age/end-of-life cost to both the State and the Federal government of caring for my medical needs by Medicaid to which I contributed NOTHING rather than Medicare into which I contributed much, far offsets any savings either might realize from “cheating” me out of retirement benefits in which I contributed either by payroll withholding or reduced annual salary during my employment.
We need more Accountants and Economists making laws than Lawyers.
It’s not just teachers penalized in this way. Any state employee gets a state retirement check, but not Social Security because the state does not deduct SS Tax from their earnings. I , however, worked two jobs throughout my adult life, one for the state and another in self employment for which I paid Social Security Tax until I retired. Even though I contributed to the SS fund for 20+ years, a large percentage of my of my Social Security is deducted and withheld from my monthly check. I earned both full Social Security and a state pension, I do not receive both because of this law. I am being punished for working two jobs. Totally unfair.
Lets be clear. SS was and is an immediate direct transfer from the young to the elderly. – their physical support responsibility (circa 1969 LSU entry economics, its an accounting program not much different from when the Judge says you will pay this much child support) How well you take care the better you are later taken care of by the next generation.(higher income = higher SS contribution)
The maximum retirement for a full retirement age in 2016 was $2639 and that was only for one that paid the MAX for 35 years, $3500 is max, in 2017 hauling down $127K till 70 and defering benefits til then, for the max max., add 401s etc and still SS isn’t chump change when for the rest of your life.
However the 2016 average monthly is only $1341 and as one knows or can easily find out, many Louisianans rely solely on SS or very close to it. Using the public info for John McCain when he ran for President, financial and tax disclosures we saw he owned several homes, had a military retirement of several thousand per month, wife was a multi millionaire, he had the Senator income of about $15K per month,and yet he still participated in receiving SS benefits, because he paid SS taxes on his incomes.
If one reviewed his rate of return one can see that he is getting by OK and the congress decided that getting the heat on and food in SS recipients was more important than any theoretical max of return for the John McCains of this world.Thus of one wanted to calculate a return it would show a skew to the less fortunate.
If one is an avid reader of the news one may remember the story of the lifetime Baton Rouge water plant worker. His salary was modest but at the greater age it wasn’t surprising that his spouse was costing as much or more than his salary in medical benefits annually. He was a public employee – with benefits (add also retirement) as nearly all public employees do.(some maybe thinking great excuse to privatize and shake those expenses) And certainly teachers are professionals, college graduates and there are very many of them, thus the average state employee has greater total expenditures on them than the average general public.
The state of La to shirk paying their fair amount in SS therefor pay less for the same employee retirement benefit, chose not to pay into the SS system along with one other state. Thus your educated, dedicated wife was not a part of the system supporting the very taxpayers supporting her. If you want to be angry ask the state to pay the many extra millions that they would owe SS and not be angry that you do not benefit from benefits that were not paid in.
Be mad or disappointed at our state bums. So what is new – we live here and know this is typical of La – its not the congress or SS fault. Why should LA get a free ride? It doesn’t deserve it
.
As to the informative comment by Christine Turin just above. She paid into SS from a second job, self employed no less thus at a rate of both employee and employer close to 14% probably, showing the substantial amounts required to support SS (or thought of another way, your parents). Once again the income shown to SS was only for the self employed and thus is drastically reduced from that actual total income enjoyed, the balance not taxed. Since SS is designed to assist the less fortunate, but whom have continually contributed, first for the life basics the reduced income paying SS taxes would provide an excess return, thus the benefit IS reduced. The other portion of contributions would have been made by the state, but it chose not to participate, thus not supporting the SS system. I hope this clarifies what is going on.
Thank (maybe dislilke) the La politicians for your experience, not the congress or SS.
I think it is important to keep in mind that Harley’s issue was that, if he pre-deceased his wife her survivor’s benefit (from HIS Social Security account) would be reduced because she is in a state retirement system.
Thank you Stephen, That is correct, his survivor’s benefit would be reduced. She is getting HER social security through her retirement. If one took the current aprox 14% employer, employee contribution as if on a one year basis, one would find that for her income the state and she underpaid, thus she would be receiving a reduced retirement amount. In all but only one other state this would not be discussed as they paid into the SS system. add just one more issue to the “Fault the Northern Most Banana Republic’s Politicians”. I wish I coined that term…
One can’t or shouldn’t ever look at the Social security funding on a one year basis. Say, for instance, that someone begins work at age 20 and works until age 70 paying into the SS system for 50 years. They then die in 8 years at age 78. All that time the funds paid in are accruing income and have or should have doubled or even tripled in amount. Thus, the 8 year post retirement benefits paid should be less, not more than what was paid in for the SS recipient leaving a SURPLUS in the first recipients account that can be used to fund someone that lives to say age 90.
And this assumption assumes full benefit payments without any reductions. To “short” the recipient in any way of any retirement plan benefits cannot be economically justified. It is simply a way that state governments use to shirk their retirement funding responsibility.
Here is a brief discussion of the WEP on Kiplinger that might be helpful:
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T051-C000-S001-a-public-pension-and-full-social-security-benefits.html
thanks to Remi, will copy this and give to friends who never believe me. we had a lot of trouble with the military SBP, took Congress yrs to finance it. communication and financial planning is the key. thanks love always ron thompson
I retired with a pension from California Teachers’ State Retirement System, but I was penalized by the Social Security System and unable to draw a SS pension even through I had the forty quarters they require from working in the pubic sector. They don’t tell you ahead of time; it comes as an unpleasant surprise. This is unfair to teachers, and doubly unfair that they couldn’t draw on a spouse’s pension once deceased.