@CharlesU659303 A you may not be aware, there are more than one variations of modifying the WEP and GPO provisions of the Social Security Act (Act). Your opinion that the WEP and GPO is a major injustice that hurts the elderly in their twilight years is wrong. I have not seen any statistics that indicate people who are paid SS benefits pursuant to the WEP provision at 40% (which is just about the same average percentage (approximately 42%) all SS beneficiaries receive) have had a financial loss. I will agree that since 1983 when the WEP were implemented, those folks no longer receive a windfall of 90% which, for the most part, redirected SS benefits away from the SS beneficiaries who worked 35 to 45 or more years in the SS system. The injustice is to the SS beneficiaries who only receive 42% on average. In fact, folks with higher earnings receive less than the 42% average. Why should folks with a government pension (i.e., federal, state, local, some teachers, firemen, police, etc.) receive greater SS benefits at 90%? I will try to copy and paste the WEP provisions from the SS website https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10045.pdf It would be helpful if you review how the SS program develops your Average Index Monthly Earnings (AIME) which is how your SS benefit is developed. It requires 35 years of earnings. Prior to the 1983 WEP, most folks with government pensions may have worked the required 10 years, but far less than 35 years. So, their AIME appeared to be low income or poverty level incomes because zeroes are averaged in for the years less than 35 years. And, as a result, were paid SS benefits at the poverty level at 90% when, in fact, many of those government pensioners had incomes well above poverty level. It is a shame that to this day, almost 40 years after WEP was implemented, that government pensioners are still trying to get SS benefits at the welfare level of 90%. With regard to your item no. 2, I suggest you review a number of Supreme Court Rulings regarding the SS program. If you choose to review just one, take a look at Flemming vs. Nestor from 1960. It is case 363 U. S. 603. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no contractual right to receive SS payments. Payment due under the SS program are not "property" even though many believe that paying SS taxes establish an "earned right". Section 1104 of the 1935 Act entitled, "Reservation of Power" states, "The right to alter, cancel, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress". This means that SS benefits are the whims of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress implemented WEP in 1983 as one of many measures to save the SS program when the Trust was near depletion. Some other measures were increasing the Full Retirement Age (FRA) from age 65 to 66 thru 67 with corresponding reductions for folks who elect to start early at age 62. For comparisons, as I understand most government pensions, full unreduced pensions may be started earlier than ages 66 thru 67 with some as early as ages 50 to 55 with certain years of service. There are approaches for WEP that use a variable percentage which is logical rather than reinstating the windfall 90% which is used for low income poverty level folks. With those approaches, highly compensated government folks receive less than 40% which is the same as highly compensated folks under the SS program. And, non-highly compensated government folks may receive amounts closer to the 42% which is the same as non-highly compensated folks under the SS program.