Social Security reform
Regarding “Editorial: Texas teachers deserve fair Social Security benefits,” (Nov. 23): I enjoyed the editorial on the Windfall Elimination Provision. I was hoping to see some input for people in my own predicament as it relates to the WEP.
I am currently retired, with a pension from my 30 years with the Houston Police Department. My “gripe” was that before joining the department, I had previous jobs in which I contributed to the Social Security fund, and I had yearly notices from Social Security that I was “Fully Vested.” To my surprise, it was upon my retirement 10 years ago, when I applied to receive my monthly benefit, that I was told I would get only about half a check. They told me that it would be considered “double dipping” if I received the full amount. I advised them about the monthly notices showing that I was fully vested, but it fell on deaf ears. I have failed to see why a person who has contributed to the Social Security fund should be thrown in with those who have not.
Maybe someone in the Legislature will also consider what I believe is an injustice to fund contributors.
Florentino Martinez, Houston
In the Chronicle’s editorial on Social Security reform, there is an important line that gets only passing mention. In writing about how unfair it is that retired teachers receive a reduced amount of Social Security, you acknowledge that being a public school teacher in Texas is “a job that (doesn’t) pay into Social Security.”
I’ve never understood why that is and, as much as we all appreciate teachers, I’ve never understood how working people who never paid into a retirement program could feel entitled to one day draw any amount of money from that program, other than survivor benefits or the like. I guess it helps explain why Social Security is expected to run out of money in the coming decade.
David Bradley, Spring
I have never been able to understand the logic behind the Social Security system’s so-called Windfall Elimination Provision.
Let’s assume that I was employed for many years (much more than 40 quarters) and my employer and I contributed to the Social Security system. Let’s also assume that my spouse has never worked outside the home.
Upon retirement, I would be entitled to collect my full Social Security retirement benefit, plus any nongovernment pension that I might have become entitled to because of my private sector employment. My spouse, who has never contributed one dime to the Social Security system, would be entitled to receive her spousal portion of one-half of my Social Security benefits.
Now, let’s change the scenario so that my spouse has worked a job and contributed to the Social Security system but has earned less than the 40 quarters that would entitle her to retire on her own record.
Let’s additionally assume that she has been gainfully employed as a teacher for many years and has “earned” a pension under the Texas Teacher Retirement System.
Upon retiring, she will be entitled to receive her full pension, but the spousal portion of her Social Security benefits will be reduced by up to twothirds because of the Windfall Elimination Provision.
It defies logic that my spouse in the second scenario is penalized for her years of teaching service and is eligible to receive less spousal benefit than the nonworking spouse.
While I understand that the cost to the Social Security Administration to eliminate this provision would be enormous, the advisability of correcting this obvious inequity should be obvious to all — citizens and members of Congress alike.
Dennis D. Ritter, Jr., The Woodlands