The Senate advanced legislation that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars by eliminating what is called the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). It’s a double-edged sword for Alaska unions and Democrats (and some Republicans) in the Alaska House and Senate.

Many public-sector workers’ Social Security payments are drastically reduced because of the WEP and GPO. If they get a pension or defined benefit, their Social Security payment gets a big haircut, although this financial penalty only impacts a portion of public sector retirees who meet certain requirements in terms of longevity of public service.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has co-sponsored legislation repeatedly since she was appointed to the Senate to end the penalties that impact Alaska public workers more than any in the country. She celebrated the victory Friday, while highlighting the massive support from union leaders in Alaska:

“I have been working on the Social Security Fairness Act for as long as I’ve been representing Alaska in the United States Senate,” Murkowski said. “There is no doubt that Congress has taken too long to address this inequity, but I am grateful to the diligent bipartisan work of my colleagues to help us finally get this over the finish line. This legislation takes care of Alaskans who have dedicated years of service to our communities, serving in integral roles such as teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Hardworking public servants should not be denied the benefits that they paid for because of their career choices, and I’m relieved that this longstanding injustice has been remedied.”

Unintended consequence – defined benefits for state workers

The new law will invalidate one of the most often-repeated arguments that unions and Democrats in Alaska are making to return defined benefits to certain employees in the state. They have said that defined benefits are necessary because of the federal Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset.

Defined benefits for state workers is expected to be front-and-center in the coming Alaska Legislature, which is controlled by Democrats and union-aligned Republicans.

In fact, many of the same people fighting for a return to state defined benefits in Alaska were quoted in Murkowski’s press release:

Joelle Hall, president of Alaska AFL-CIO: “The Alaska AFL-CIO and all of its affiliated unions are elated with the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act. The GPO/ WEP provisions have existed for far too long impacting the lives of thousands of Alaska workers and their heirs. Punishing public employees and their heirs for dedicating their lives to their community is wrong and we want to thank Senator Murkowski for her long-standing support for fixing this policy that has hurt so many families.”

Heidi Drygas, executive director of ASEA/AFSCME Local 52: “Today’s vote is incredibly welcome news to thousands of Alaska’s current and former public employees who have been unfairly punished simply for their public service. We thank Senator Murkowski for her leadership on this critically important issue for our membership. So many Alaska families will breathe easier tonight knowing they will receive the full retirement that they deserve. Thank you to the thousands of AFSCME employees and retirees for their decades of persistent advocacy on this issue.”

Sean Kuzakin, president of Public Safety Employees Association Local 803: “Alaska’s law enforcement personnel have worked too hard and put too much on the line in service of our communities to not receive their fully deserved Social Security benefits. I’m relieved that this long-standing injustice has been corrected and grateful to Senator Murkowski for her support for Alaska’s public safety employees.”

Dominic Lozano, president of Alaska Professional Fire Fighters: “Alaska’s firefighters applaud Senator Murkowski for standing up for public workers across Alaska,. For too long the federal government has been withholding portions of our social security benefits unfairly.  Senator Murkowski understands the importance of this legislation and has been advocating for Alaskans since she started in the Senate. Retirees throughout Alaska know the importance of this legislation as well as future generations of Alaskans who will now receive their full social security benefit.”

Kathy Simpler, director of National Education Association-Alaska: “Passage of H.R. 82 is historic and will immediately make a positive difference in the lives of thousands of former military members, public servants and educators. We’re grateful that Senator Murkowski has been fighting alongside Alaska’s educators on this issue for her entire career in the US Senate.”

Paul McIntosh, president, National Active and Retired Employees Association:“More than 17,000 former public servants in Alaska, and over 2.8 million nationally, are unfairly penalized by WEP and GPO. With this Senate vote, backed by Senator Murkowski, we will finally receive the full benefits we earned through our hard work. The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) will be forever grateful for Senator Murkowski’s leadership in the effort to repeal WEP and GPO, which NARFE has been advocating for 40 years.”

None of the Alaska union leaders mentioned that they will now drop their push for the costly defined benefits for State of Alaska employees, pensions that would impact city, borough, and school district employees across Alaska.

The State of Alaska still owes at least $6 billion to the former defined-benefit recipients who were enrolled in the program before it was discontinued in 2006 and replaced with a defined-contribution system, similar to what is found in the private sector.

More details

The WEP was enacted in 1983. It trims or drastically cuts Social Security benefits of workers who receive pensions from a federal, state, or local government for employment not covered by Social Security.

Alaska, a state that has a massive government workforce, has thousands of retirees impacted by the provision.

Likewise, the GPO, which was enacted in 1977, reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows, and widowers whose spouses receive pensions from a federal, state, or local government.

Together, these provisions reduce Social Security benefits for nearly 3 million American workers and retirees, Murkowski’s office said.

The bill had the support of all Democrats in the Senate, and 24 Republicans, including Murkowski, Sen. Dan Sullivan, and Vice President-elect Sen. JD Vance.

The bill now heads to the desk of President Joe Biden, who is expected to sign it. It will cost nearly $200 million over a decade and will increase the risk of Social Security being insolvent by the mid 2030s.

Associated Press

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — Caleb Love matched his season-high with 24 points to help power Arizona to a 94-41 rout of Central Michigan on Saturday.

The Wildcats (6-5) won back-to-back games for the first time since beating Canisius and Old Dominion to open the season.

The Chippewas (5-6) scored the game’s first three points but Love knocked down three 3-pointers and scored 18 first-half points to put Arizona firmly in charge at intermission, 44-23.

Arizona shot 54.5% from the field, including 10 of 29 from distance, and got 44 points from its bench. K.J. Lewis hit 4 of 8 from the field and 5 of 5 from the line for 13 points to lead the reserves. Tobe Awaka added a double-double with 10 points and 10 rebounds. The Wildcats dominated the boards, outrebounding the Chippewas 45-27.

Central Michigan struggled from the field, hitting just 14 of 54 (25.9%), including just 3 of 16 from distance. Cayden Vasko hit 4 of 13, including 2 of 5 from 3-point range, to lead the team with 10 points.

Arizona opens Big 12 Conference play at home when it plays host to TCU on Dec. 30. Central Michigan will look to snap its three-game losing string on Dec. 30 when it plays host to Cleary.

___

Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-basketball

At UC Santa Cruz, police arrested one student who was using a megaphone during a demonstration on Oct. 7, according to an eyewitness who spoke to LookOut Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office public arrest reports show one person was arrested on the Santa Cruz campus for obstruction of a public officer and battery without injury that day.

While no arrests were made, Pomona College has suspended 12 students for the remainder of the 2024–25 academic year following an Oct. 7 demonstration in which they entered, damaged and vandalized a restricted building, according to the student newspaper. The college also banned dozens of students from the four other campuses of the Claremont Colleges, a consortium that includes Pomona.

Private colleges have implemented their own policy changes. Pomona College now requires students and faculty to swipe their ID cards to enter academic buildings. Since last semester, students and visitors entering USC are also required to show a school or photo ID.

Some students are still facing charges from last year’s protests

Few charges have been filed after UCLA’s encampment made headlines in April when counterprotesters led an attack on encampment protesters while law enforcement did not intervene for several hours. The following day, 254 people were arrested on charges related to the protest encampment. In October, two additional people were also arrested for participating in the counter-protester violence.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office is pursuing three felony cases against individuals arrested at UCLA in relation to violence during last spring’s protests.

Meanwhile, the city attorney’s office is reviewing 93 misdemeanor cases from USC and 210 from UCLA, according to information it provided to CalMatters last month.

Lilyan Zwirzina, a junior at Cal Poly Humboldt, was among the students arrested in the early morning of April 30 following protesters occupying a campus building and ignoring orders to disperse from the university. Law enforcement took her to Humboldt County Correctional Facility, where she faced four misdemeanor charges, including resisting arrest. Zwirzina thought she’d have to cancel her study abroad semester, which conflicted with the court date she was given.

“I was pretty frustrated and kind of freaked out,” Zwirzina said. Authorities dropped the charges against her in July.

The Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office didn’t pursue charges against 27 of the 39 people arrested, citing insufficient evidence. The 12 remaining cases were referred to the Cal Poly Humboldt Police Department for investigation. Those cases remain under investigation, according to the university.

For 13 people, including students, arrested at Stanford University in June, the Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has not pressed charges as of Nov. 20, according to information his office provided CalMatters.

Elsewhere across the state, some district attorneys are pursuing misdemeanor and felony charges against student protesters. Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer is pursuing misdemeanor charges against 50 people, including two UCI professors, a teaching assistant, and 26 students, stemming from a protest at UC Irvine on Oct. 22, 2023. Charges include failure to disperse, resisting arrest and vandalism.

At Pomona College, 19 students were arrested on April 5 on charges of trespassing after some protesters entered and refused to leave an administrative building. Students arrested either had their cases dismissed or have accepted community service in lieu of further legal action. James Gutierrez, the attorney representing the arrested students, said he asked that the college drop charges against its students, citing their right to protest the use of paid tuition dollars.

“They are righteously demanding that their colleges, the ones they pay tuition to and housing fees and pour a lot of money into, that that university or college stop investing in companies that are directly supporting this genocide and indirectly supporting it,” he said.

Students fight back against campus protest policies

As administrators face the challenge of applying protest policies more uniformly and swiftly, the truer test of California public higher education institutions’ protest rules will be playing out in court.

In one already resolved case, UC leadership agreed in August to comply with a court order requiring the campus to end programs or events that exclude Jewish students. A federal judge ruled some Jewish students in support of Israel who were blocked from entering the encampment had their religious liberties violated — though some Jewish students did participate in UCLA’s protest encampment.

Now, students have filed at least two lawsuits against their campuses and the UC system for violating their rights while ending student encampments last spring. In September, ACLU NorCal filed suits against the UC and UC Santa Cruz for not providing students due process when they immediately barred arrested students from returning to campus.

“Those students should have gotten a hearing, an opportunity to defend themselves or to explain themselves, and the school would have shown evidence of why they created a risk of disturbance on campus,” Chessie Thacher, senior staff attorney at ACLU of Northern California, said.

UC Santa Cruz spokesperson Scott Hernandez-Jason said the university “appreciates the court’s careful deliberation” and that the university “is committed to upholding the right to free expression while also protecting the safety of its campus community.”

In October, ACLU SoCal filed lawsuits on behalf of two students and two faculty members against the UC and UCLA, alleging the actions the university took to break down the encampment violated their free speech rights.

UCLA spokesperson Ricardo Vazquez told CalMatters via email that the university would respond in court and that UCLA “fully supports community members expressing their First Amendment rights in ways that do not violate the law, our policies, jeopardize community safety, or disrupt the functioning of the university.”

“The encampment that arose on campus this spring became a focal point for violence, a disruption to campus, and was in violation of the law,” Vazquez said in the email statement. “These conditions necessitated its removal.”