big support. Until it didn't because a certain person named Donald Crumb didn't like it.

Example; husband and wife married for decades. He worked for government and was not required to pay into SS, is retired and receiving a nice pension. She worked for the private sector, paid into SS throughout her whole career and also retired.

Is it true that under this bill, on top of his own pension, he would be eligible to collect SS benefits under his spouse, without ever paying into it, while she was still drawing her full amount as well?

A spouse can already get a SS benefit regardless of this bill and a spouse/dependent needs to be designated at some point during the work period (there are income restrictions involved with SS too).

Here is SS's info on that - https://blog.ssa.gov/do-you-qualify-for-social-security-spouses-benefits-2/#:~:text=How%20the%20spouse%27s%20benefit%20is,benefits%20on%20your%20spouse%27s%20record.

This bill is actually addressing the reduction or elimination of the (eligible) SS amount for anyone who actually had a work history where they paid into both a governmental annuity/pension AND SS.

This bill needs an amendment to prevent the scenario I suggested.

IMO, everyone working should contribute to SS, not having some government employees be exempted from it. Is it good enough for the rest of us, but not them?

Remember the "pay into" thing is a TAX - "FICA" (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) under the original name of "Social Security" which is -

"OASDI" (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance).

I.e., it is "INSURANCE" like life insurance or car insurance, etc.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751

Other "insurances" can be designated to cover others as "recipients". Social Security is not like an "annuity".

There are millions who pay the FICA tax (including paying it for 40 quarters or more - i.e., "full vested" ) who never reach the age to even collect it (mostly POC), and no one is reimbursing them after they are deceased (if not designated). There are caveats that happen when you designate a spouse/dependent/survivor - i.e., the original contributor has a REDUCED benefit when they retire (even when the spouse is still working and is otherwise "ineligible" ) and that continues if their designated spouse predeceases them.

For instance, I am a Federal employee who worked long enough under old Civil Service to draw a Federal pension for which I paid in massive contributions. But before and after my Federal service, I also worked over 10 years paying into Social Security at a high enough pay amount to be eligible for my own Social Security as well. However I am penalized and cannot get as much Social Security as anyone else who worked and paid into SS because of the windfall offset provision. So if this bill passes, my SS will go up from a measly $45 or so to over $200 per month which would at least cover my Medicare premiums.

But I have never been able to draw a spouse's SS benefit because I have my own Federal pension that is higher and this bill will not change that and I will still never get a spouse's SS benefit from my spouse's work. However my sister-in-law who was a stay at home spouse and never worked enough to get her own SS gets more in spouse's SS from my brother's work than I get in my Federal pension! Because he was high earner and I had a much more modest salary as a Federal employee.

And FERS people DO pay a little into the old CSRS but the bulk of their payout would be from contributions to the "TSP" ( "Thrift Savings Plan", which is 401(k)-like) + SS when they retire.

what my husband has. He started working in summer of 84 at the postal service. He’s retired now seven years right before things started really going downhill at the PO. He was an electronic technician. He worked with what would now be called maga people. He was so happy to get out of there.

But she worked full time while she went to college for ten years and has worked every summer in private industry to help pay the bills. So she has paid a lot into FICA and she should get the full SSA retirement benefit. Not some measly $200 per month SSA check.

Although we don't both collect SS yet, it would greatly reduce our income simply because we worked as State employees for some part of our working lives. Anyone who has ever worked for the State knows that State jobs aren't very lucrative to begin with. The only upside is that you are guaranteed a pension albeit not very large. It just sucks that the SS benefit you eventually receive is reduced because of this stupid provision.

If I saw the right bill, it had like 120 Republican supporters. I can't imagine why they would back it otherwise.