Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
Fully KeptSocial Security

Repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset to restore full Social Security benefits for public servants such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters (Social Security Fairness Act).

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

Fully KeptFact-checker reviewConfidence: 92%

Independently verified. The Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 82, 118th Congress) fully repealed BOTH the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset - the exact outcome promised. Wikipedia (directly fetched) confirms it eliminated both provisions, passed the House 327-75 on Nov. 12, 2024 and the Senate 76-20 on Dec. 21, 2024, and was signed into law by President Biden on Jan. 5, 2025 (323 House cosponsors). Rep. Angie Craig was a cosponsor of H.R. 82 and voted for it; her office stated she 'helped lead a bipartisan coalition to pass the Social Security Fairness Act through the House.' Because the promised outcome was 100% enacted into law with Craig's cosponsorship and support, FULL (+1.0) is correct - CHAMPIONED would be a downgrade reserved for leading an effort that did not fully land. Fairness check: a Republican cosponsor of this genuinely bipartisan, enacted bill would receive the identical FULL, so no partisan asymmetry. Note: congress.gov, house.gov, govtrack, and legiscan returned HTTP 403 to automated fetches (routine bot-blocking, not evidence the sources are fake); their content was corroborated via search aggregation and the directly-fetched Wikipedia article.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →