Just before Christmas Uncle Sam, not Santa, came down the chimney with a big bag of new benefits for state and local government workers. H.R. 82 was called the Social Security Fairness Act, even though it is not fair to the rest of those collecting the old-age benefit because it reduces the system’s solvency. It passed with bipartisan majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives by 327-75 and the Senate by 76-20.  H.R. 82 is convoluted, but a Wall Street Journal summary described the main effect as delivering “a retirement windfall for government workers” by repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision from the comprehensive 1983 reform of the Greenspan Commission. That will give a bonanza to “high-earning public workers with rich pensions.” A second reform will correct a 1977 policy that reduced spousal benefits. President Joe Biden said he will sign it. President-elect Donald Trump said he supported it. So much for this year’s campaign pledges by him and Republican congressional candidates to cut excessive government spending.  The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Sept. 9 the cost of H.R. 82 will be $196 billion over the next 10 years. That’s a $19.6 billion yearly hit to the program. According to Social Security’s own 2024 summary report of the situation before H.R. 82, Social Security’s taxes and trust fund will be sufficient to pay only 79% of benefits in 2033, mandating benefit cuts. But now, after H.R. 82, a Nov. 8 CBO estimate warned the trust fund, which is supposed to cover future payments, “would be exhausted roughly half a year earlier.” “The Social Security (Un)Fairness Act worsens the program’s funding shortfall, thus accelerating and deepening those cuts,” Romina Boccia told us. She’s the director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute and contributed chapters to the book “A Fiscal Cliff: New Perspectives on the US Federal Debt Crisis.”  “They have earned these benefits,” insisted Sen. Susan Collins of Maine of the government workers. She’s one of the Republicans who voted for the bill. Actually, Boccia said, “This is about letting state and local workers double dip by getting excessive Social Security benefits from hiding their other earnings from Social Security’s benefit calculation, while collecting generous public-sector pensions.” Related Articles Editorials | CARB should cancel e-bike subsidies Editorials | Trump’s call to bust budget cap fiscally irresponsible Editorials | Embrace the spirit of the holiday season Editorials | Mercy is a good thing, sometimes Editorials | The decline in fentanyl ODs nationally The bottom line: There’s no money to give even greater benefits to public-employee workers who, especially in California, already receive cushy pay, perks and pensions. For the rest of us, the 2023 Social Security Survey conducted for Nationwide Financial found 75% of Americans age 50-plus “worry Social Security will run out of funding in their lifetime,” up from 66% in 2014. Now they will worry more. Congress also, once again, sidestepped real Social Security reform, for example by allowing younger workers to invest part of their contributions into 401(k)-style funds. Such a reform was outlined in Cato’s latest “Handbook for Policymakers.” As Cato noted, “Social Security’s long-term unfunded liabilities now total $42.2 trillion. Congress’s failure to act is threatening America’s economic stability and promises to bury our children and grandchildren under a mountain of debt.” Until serious reform happens, Americans will face the prospect of either higher taxes, abruptly reduced benefits or both because the government is an incompetent manager of retirement benefits. That’s just a fact.  Without real reform, Social Security is like a family paying off credit cards by going on a New Year’s vacation cruise. A crash is inevitable.