Legislative reforms to address the long-term solvency of the Social Security program are desperately needed, but few elected lawmakers want to tackle that potentially risky issue head-on so they instead tinker around the edges.

On Tuesday, the U.S. House voted overwhelmingly, 327-75, in favor of a bill dubbed the Social Security Fairness Act, which could substantially impact the Social Security payouts for millions of beneficiaries and retirees, according to Louisiana's KALB.

The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration and, though its future is uncertain, if passed will then go to President Joe Biden's desk to be signed into law.

Social Security reform

The Social Security Fairness Act, more formally known as H.R.82, was introduced in January 2023 at the start of the current session of Congress and had been sitting in the House Ways and Means Committee since then until action was forced to bring it to the floor for a vote with a procedural move earlier this month.

It was jointly authored by outgoing Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA), who did not run for re-election after his district was substantially changed in Louisiana's court-ordered redistricting, and Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA).

The bill would eliminate two provisions within the Social Security program -- the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset -- that generally reduce or completely eliminate earned benefits for nearly three million American workers or their spouses who've spent most of their careers in public service and receive pensions.

The bill's sponsors speak out

In a joint statement, Reps. Graves and Spanberger said, "By passing the Social Security Fairness Act, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives showed up for the millions of Americans -- police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other local and state public servants -- who worked a second job to make ends meet or began a second career to support their families after retiring from public service."

"A bipartisan majority of the U.S. House voted to provide a secure retirement to the hundreds of thousands of spouses, widows, and widowers who are denied their spouses’ Social Security benefits simply because they chose careers of service," they continued. "These tireless advocates have for decades urged their elected representatives to listen to their stories and correct this injustice -- and today, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House voted for them."

"For more than 40 years, the Social Security trust funds have been artificially propped up by stolen benefits that millions of Americans paid for and that their families deserve," the lawmakers said. "The long-term solvency of Social Security is an issue that Congress must address -- but an issue that is wholly separate from allowing Virginians, Louisianans, and Americans across our country who did their part and contributed their earnings to retire with dignity."

"The time to put an end to this theft is now. A broad, bipartisan coalition of 62 Senators have signed on to our bipartisan Social Security Fairness Act -- surpassing the majority needed to pass the bill on the U.S. Senate floor and send it to the president’s desk to be signed into law," Graves and Spanberger added. "We encourage Senate leadership to build upon this clear momentum, bring our bipartisan effort up for a vote, and deliver retirement security to Americans who have earned it."

What to know about the bill

According to The Hill, the Social Security Fairness Act had languished in the House Ways and Means Committee since it was first introduced until a rare discharge petition earlier this month achieved the requisite signatures of a majority of members to bypass leadership and force the bill to the floor so that it could be voted on.

It addresses two separate provisions that impact millions of former public service workers and their spouses whose jobs weren't covered by Social Security because they receive a pension instead, and often reduced or eliminated Social Security benefits for those workers and their spouses to offset the pensions -- though in some cases some recipients would actually more benefits than they otherwise would have earned.

The bill clearly had ample support in the House, but it also had plenty of detractors too, who argued that the provisions' formulas should have adjusted to achieve parity rather than be completely eliminated, as well as that the cuts would cost taxpayers $190 billion over ten years while also worsening Social Security's long-term outlook by increasing benefits for some recipients.

As noted, the bill now moves to the Senate, and though the two sponsors of the bill bragged about the legislation's support in the upper chamber, it is unclear if the Senate will have a chance to address it given their already packed schedule in the short time remaining before the session concludes at the end of the year.