The Senate will likely pass a bill on Monday that will shorten the lifespan of the Social Security trust fund by eliminating decades-old provisions that barred around 2 million public sector union employees from accessing certain funds due to their pension plans. If enacted, Social Security would run out of money about six months earlier than it is currently expected to. 

The law, called the Social Security Fairness Act, would repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset that were put into place in the 1980s as a way of stopping public union members from “double-dipping” into the trust fund. Unions have long said that the two provisions do nothing more than unfairly bar members from accessing the money they deserve. 

President Biden has not yet issued a statement on whether or not he would sign the bill. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Several think tanks from across the ideological spectrum have come out against the bill. The hawkish Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released a study showing a number of problems with the bill, including a cut to lifetime benefits of about $25,000 for a middle class couple. The committee also showed that the operating costs of Social Security would go up, contributing to the trust fund’s shortened lifespan. 

The conservative Heritage Foundation called on Congress to reform the WEP and GPO without eliminating them in their entirety. A more liberal outfit, the Urban Institute, cautioned that enacting the Social Security Fairness Act would disproportionately grant additional benefits to those public sector workers who are already making higher-than-average incomes. 

The president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, called on her members to contact their senators before the expected vote this week. “A Senate vote on the Social Security Fairness Act could come as early as Monday night! Together, we can make a difference for retirees and working families. Take 5 minutes to call your senators and urge them to vote YES,” Ms. Weingarten wrote.

On Friday, the International Association of Firefighters and the Fraternal Order of Police wrote to Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell urging them to support the legislation. 

“Since the 1980s, the WEP and GPO have stolen Social Security benefits from public servants, including public safety officers,” the union’s presidents wrote. “While these provisions were intended to prevent double-dipping in the Social Security system, they inadvertently slash Social Security benefits for retired public-sector workers by nearly $500 per month.”

The House overwhelmingly passed the bill in November with the support of 327 lawmakers, including all members of both Republican and Democratic leadership. Just four Democrats and 71 Republicans voted against the legislation. 

During debate on the House floor, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Congressman Jodey Arrington, warned that the law, if enacted, would accelerate the insolvency of Social Security for all Americans even if only around 2 million people get a few extra hundred dollars per month. 

“To solve this inequity and injustice, some of my colleagues would just repeal the windfall elimination provision altogether. Well, that sounds good, but it’s going to cost $192 billion to do that,” Mr. Arrington warned. “What we should do is fix the inadequacy of the windfall elimination provision, which was oversimplified … and make sure people are paid what they’re owed.”

“We should have a system of fairness for every public servant in every state,” the chairman said. “If we start just throwing money at this … we’re gonna accelerate the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund.”

One of the four Democrats who voted against the bill, Congressman John Larson, who also serves as a senior member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, echoed Mr. Arrington’s concerns about the bill. 

“We need to come together as a Congress and fix Social Security in a manner that doesn’t hurt or cut benefits for individuals that haven’t seen a benefit enhancement in more than 50 years!” Mr. Larson exclaimed. “And we come here today and say, ‘here’s a crumb,’ but even in the form of this crumb, this proposal will cut benefits for hardworking, everyday Americans.”