The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20120924131140/http://amarillo.com/stories/2000/03/02/usn_LA0876.001.shtml

House approves bill to repeal Social Security earnings limit

Posted: Thursday, March 02, 2000

WASHINGTON - In uncommon election-year bipartisanship, House Republicans and Democrats united Wednesday behind legislation allowing 800,000 senior citizens between ages 65 and 69 to work without fear of losing Social Security benefits. President Clinton pledged his support.

The House voted 422-0 to send the Senate a bill repealing the Social Security earnings limit, which amounts to a penalty of $1 in benefits for every $3 a recipient earns over $17,000 this year.

Sponsors said the time has arrived to scrap the Depression-era law, originally enacted to make more jobs available for younger workers. Retailers, restaurants and other businesses are battling a labor shortage and Congress is searching for modest accomplishments to offer senior voters - particularly because agreement is less likely on broader Medicare and Social Security reforms.

"Why in the world would we want to discourage any American, whether they're 17 or 67, from working?" said Rep. Bill Archer, R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. "Americans are living longer now, and older Americans can work, they want to work, and they shouldn't be punished by an outdated law."

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, said, "Go into almost any store or business these days and you're just as likely to find a retiree working behind the counter as you are a high school or college student. Some seniors work because they want the extra money. Others just like the feeling of staying busy and holding down a job. Whatever the reason, no senior should be penalized for pulling in a paycheck."

Senate supporters promised prompt action. Clinton, in a letter to congressional leaders, said he would sign the bill into law as long as it remains unencumbered by tax cuts or other changes he could not accept and that have doomed several past repeal efforts.

"We should reward every American who wants to and can stay active and productive," said Clinton, who first called for the repeal in his 1992 campaign book "Putting People First" and included it in his past two budgets.

The legislation would take an estimated $22.7 billion out of the Social Security trust fund over 10 years. In the long run, it would not further jeopardize the program's solvency, the Social Security Administration says, in part because more people working means more in payroll tax contributions to the program.

Repealing the law would increase the available national labor pool by an estimated 5 percent - beyond the 800,000 directly affected, many more people are discouraged from working at all - and save up to $150 million in administrative costs, congressional sponsors said.

"We can't afford to keep this resource, these people who have built this country - we can't afford to keep them out," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Several senior citizens interviewed on the job in Florida said they would welcome the change.

"I work because I can't retire. I would never be able to do the stay-at-home-and-do nothing thing," said J.R. Sanders, 67, who works at a McDonald's restaurant in Lake Mary, Fla. "I've worked all my life, but I earned that Social Security and I always hated that they took money away if I earned too much. Who are they to decide?"

For Republicans, the bill's easy passage marks the second success of their election-year strategy of enacting a series of popular items individually, rather than lumping them into a huge package like last year's vetoed $792 billion tax cut.

Last month, the GOP pushed through a more controversial 10-year, $182 billion measure that would ease the income tax "marriage penalty" paid by millions of two-income couples.

"We have a piece of Social Security reform," said Rep. E. Clay Shaw, R-Fla. "This is a very important piece for our seniors. We're not wasting time."

Because the bill was not tied to unpalatable GOP tax cuts, Democrats found it irresistible and took pains to point out that they had supported the concept for years.

"This is the first time we've had a clean vote on this issue," said Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas.

But many Democrats also faulted the GOP for failing to address longer-term senior citizen issues such as a Medicare prescription drug benefit and using debt interest savings to keep Social Security solvent through 2050.

"This is good. This is great. But it is really only the beginning of what we have to do," said Rep. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

Other Democrats said the main beneficiaries would be older Americans who do not have to rely completely on Social Security and Medicare, accomplishing little for the neediest senior citizens of all - particularly elderly, widowed women who never worked much outside the home.

"For most Americans who are counting on Social Security, this change makes no real difference," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.

The bill also leaves in place a separate Social Security earnings limit for people under age 65, which this year amounts to a reduction of $1 in benefits for every $2 in earnings above $10,080. There is no earnings limit for Social Security recipients age 70 and above.



CONTACT US

  • Switchboard 806-376-4488
  • Report news 806-345-3327
  • Advertising 806-345-3225
  • Classifieds 806-373-7355
  • Circulation 806-376-5881
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING