COLUMBIA 鈥� South Carolina will stop pulling money from orphaned foster children鈥檚 benefits if the Department of Social Services can get enough funding to cover their care, Gov. Henry McMaster announced Tuesday.

The Palmetto State is to end or announce an end to the practice, which is often called the 鈥渙rphan tax,鈥� according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. But the change depends on whether the state Department of Social Service can get enough money to cover the difference, according to the agency.

When a child鈥檚 parents both die, that child can receive Social Security benefits their parents earned during their lifetime. However, states can use that money to pay for that child鈥檚 care until they turn 18.

鈥淚t seems too cynical to be real,鈥� Alex Adams, assistant secretary of the Administration for Children and Families, told the SC Daily Gazette.

As of December, , including South Carolina, did just that, Adams said.

The amount each child might receive depends on how much their parents earned in through their paychecks while they were alive. On average, the monthly benefits are about $1,100, Adams said.

That could amount to tens of thousands of dollars by the time a child turns 18 and leaves the foster care system, Adams said.

Children leaving foster care face more financial difficulties than their peers because they don鈥檛 have parents to help support them, he said. Former foster children are more likely to after turning 18 and .

Getting Social Security benefits could mean an 18-year-old is able to pay rent, buy a car to get to and from work, or pay college expenses, Adams said.

鈥淭his is significant money for youth exiting foster care,鈥� he said.

The cost for states to cover the difference is relatively small. In South Carolina, DSS would need an additional $1.6 million to cover the cost of care for the 301 children who qualify now, according to the agency.

That鈥檚 a relatively small number of students compared to the in foster care. The benefits kick in only if a child is orphaned, meaning the change won鈥檛 apply to most foster children.

鈥淭his change will give children in foster care greater stability and more resources as they build toward a brighter future,鈥� DSS Director Tony Catone said in a statement.

Adams learned about the practice while working for the child services agency , he said. He was shocked to learn the agency pulled from children鈥檚 benefits and how little it would cost to cover the care with taxpayer dollars, he said.

鈥淚t meant everything to the children but was pocket change to the agency,鈥� Adams said.

In December, Adams sent letters to governors of the 39 states that still used federal benefits to pay for foster children鈥檚 care, asking them to reconsider. South Carolina鈥檚 leaders were very receptive to the idea, he said.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, states as an additional source of revenue for underfunded child welfare programs. It鈥檚 unclear when South Carolina began pulling from children鈥檚 payments.

鈥淲hen a child enters foster care, our responsibility is to protect that child and give them every opportunity to build a better future,鈥� McMaster said in a statement. 鈥淏y ensuring these benefits stay with the children they were intended for, we can give them resources to help build that future.鈥�

But the practice won鈥檛 end before McMaster leaves office in January.

The policy change itself doesn鈥檛 need legislative approval. But because of the need for funding, the earliest it could start is July 1, 2027, said agency lobbyist Connelly-Anne Ragley.

Sen. Tom Young, who chairs the Family and Veterans鈥� Services Committee, said he would work to ensure the money gets into the budget next year.

Young, also a member of the Senate Finance Committee, heard about the issue a few weeks ago and told DSS leaders the state needed to fix it as quickly as possible. He was glad to hear a change was already in the works, he said.

鈥淭he money鈥檚 intended for the child,鈥� the Aiken Republican said. 鈥淎t the end of the day, this is the right thing to do.鈥�

How the money will get to the children is yet to be determined. The funds could go into interest-bearing bank accounts for youth to access once they turn 18.

Or, the money could go toward , which are like Individual Retirement Accounts, often referred to as IRAs, but with different rules about withdrawing funds for major life events, such as to pay for education or buy a first home.

First lady Melania Trump in June as a to benefit from , tax-advantaged investment accounts for children created by last year鈥檚 massive federal tax law. (The policy has earned rare , including from potential Democratic .)

Regardless of the specifics, what matters is that the child is getting the money and not the state, Adams said.

鈥淭he important thing is that it鈥檚 there for the child and the child鈥檚 benefit instead of the state鈥檚 coffers,鈥� Adams said.

This story was originally published by .

SC Daily Gazette is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. SC Daily Gazette maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seanna Adcox for questions: info@scdailygazette.com.

While union leaders are the bill as a win for their members, it鈥檚 a bad deal for the rest of us. It will undermine the progressive nature of the Social Security program, cost taxpayers billions and force painful cuts down the road.

The new bill is short and simple, less than 300 words. In a clever bit of marketing, the sponsors dubbed it the Social Security Fairness Act. But the bill isn’t about 鈥渇airness鈥�; it鈥檚 about giving a windfall to a relatively small group of people at the expense of taxpayers.

That鈥檚 because the new act repeals two provisions affecting certain state and local government workers who split their careers between jobs that are exempt from Social Security and those that require them to pay into the system. One, literally called the Windfall Elimination Provision, affected the employees themselves, while the second, called the Government Pension Offset, affected the of those workers.

Repealing these provisions, former Social Security Advisory Board chair Sylvester Schieber told , 鈥済ives workers who earn salaries not covered by Social Security disproportionately generous benefits compared to workers covered under the system for all their earnings.鈥�

In fact, the American Enterprise Institute鈥檚 Andrew Biggs and found that a hypothetical teacher who worked a full career in a state where educators are exempt from Social Security could receive $283,300 more in federal retirement benefits than the exact same teacher who paid into Social Security for her entire career.

This was exactly the type of inequity the provisions were supposed to prevent. Now, Congress has not only opened the door to such windfalls; it has created winners and losers across states. Teachers who pay into Social Security for their full working lives, in New York, Florida and 33 other states, will subsidize those who do not in Illinois, Massachusetts, California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of those extra payments 鈥� which the retirees will receive in addition to their state pensions 鈥� will amount to over the next 10 years.

But it鈥檚 even worse than that. The money will come out of the Social Security , which was already projected to run out of money sometime around 2033. With higher Social Security payments now going to those special beneficiaries every month, Congress just sped up the clock. 

Once the money runs out, the sitting president will be forced to immediately cut Social Security benefit payments by 21%. Those cuts will be painful no matter when they happen. But by granting this windfall, Congress made sure they will happen sooner. That鈥檚 not smart or rational policymaking, let alone fair or just.

WASHINGTON 鈥� A measure to ensure the federal student aid form opens up annually by Oct. 1 passed the U.S. House Friday with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The  鈥� which passed 381-1 鈥� came after the U.S. Department of Education faced major backlash over the botched rollout of the 2024-25 , or FAFSA. California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren was the only lawmaker to vote against the bill. 

Though the form got a makeover after Congress passed the FAFSA Simplification Act in late 2020, users faced multiple glitches and technical errors throughout the form鈥檚 soft launch in December and past its full debut in January, prompting processing delays and gaps in submissions.

The department has worked to correct these glitches and close that gap while also fixing major issues that prevented parents without Social Security numbers from completing the form.

Adding another complication, the  it would use a phased rollout of the 2025-26 form in an attempt to address any errors that might arise before it opens up to everyone 鈥� making the application fully available two months later than usual.

鈥淪ince Oct. 1, the Department has conducted three successful beta tests of the 2025鈥�26 FAFSA form to ensure it is ready for all students and families on or before Dec. 1,鈥� U.S. Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal said in a statement shared Monday with States Newsroom, while noting that the department already began its fourth testing stage this past week.

鈥淲e have a fully functioning site and a form working end-to-end that has been successfully submitted by more than 10,000 students, with dozens of schools all over the country receiving the data for student aid packages,鈥� he said.

The department is on track to launch the 2026-27 FAFSA on Oct. 1, 2025, with 鈥渁 fully functioning system,鈥� according to Kvaal. 

Codified deadline

Though the department legally has until Jan. 1 to roll out the form, it typically launches Oct. 1.

U.S. Rep. Erin Houchin, an Indiana Republican and member of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, in July  to standardize that deadline.

鈥淚鈥檓 especially frustrated considering the Department of Education has had three years to simplify the FAFSA as Congress has dictated,鈥� Houchin said during floor debate Friday.

She also  from the Government Accountability Office, including that nearly three-quarters of all calls to the call center went unanswered in the first five months of the 2024-25 rollout.

鈥淲e want this program to work 鈥� we want to make sure that children and families that want to send their kids to college have the availability to do that and that the FAFSA is available and workable,鈥� she added.

U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House education panel, echoed his support during the floor debate, saying the measure will 鈥渉elp ensure that even more students have the information they need in a timelier manner to access Pell Grants and other vital student aid.鈥�

Scott initially opposed the effort when the committee took it up in July out of concerns that the implementation deadline could force the department to roll out an incomplete form on Oct. 1 of this year.

鈥淗owever, because we鈥檙e now considering the bill after Oct. 1, the deadline will apply next year, 2025, and that gives the department ample time to make improvements and fix any lingering issues,鈥� the Virginia Democrat said.

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican,  in July.

The bill was referred to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, where Cassidy serves as ranking member. After Republicans won a Senate majority in the Nov. 5 elections,  to chair the panel next year. 

This originally appeared on .

But instead of solving this problem, the House of Representatives may soon a bill that would repeal two provisions designed to preserve fairness in the Social Security formula. If passed, the measure would provide a financial windfall to retirees like former teachers and school superintendents who already have a healthy pension to fall back on. And it would taxpayers $196 billion over the next 10 years.

The rules are complicated, so an example might help. Imagine a hypothetical California teacher. Like most educators in states like Ohio, Texas and Massachusetts, and over of police officers and firefighters, California teachers don鈥檛 participate in Social Security. Our hypothetical teacher doesn鈥檛 pay the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax on income, and her school district doesn鈥檛 pay the employer portion, either.

Instead, these workers rely solely on their state-provided pension benefits. That deal works out well for people who are willing to stick around for the 20 or 30 years needed to vest in the system, but will not. 

Let鈥檚 say our California teacher lasts 25 years. She won鈥檛 qualify for a Social Security benefit, but her state pension will pay . Depending on her age, she could live for as many years in retirement as she taught, meaning her pension benefit could easily pay out more than $1 million by the time she dies.

But say our hypothetical teacher doesn鈥檛 completely retire. Let鈥檚 assume she works for 10 more years as a yoga instructor. She earns less than she did as a teacher, and both she and her yoga studio must pay payroll taxes on her earnings.

Now, she鈥檚 eligible for Social Security on top of her teacher pension. When she goes to file for benefits, the Social Security Administration asks if she has a government pension and, if so, how much it is worth.

If it didn鈥檛 ask, the Social Security Administration would assume the former teacher was only a relatively low-paid yoga instructor, not a pensioner. Because Social Security is progressive and replaces a higher percentage of earnings for lower-income workers, she could potentially qualify for the same benefit as someone with much more limited means 鈥� and no pension to fall back on.

Beginning in the 1970s and ’80s, Congress decided this wasn鈥檛 fair. In response, it created the Windfall Elimination Provision for workers who split their careers in and out of Social Security. A separate provision, the Government Pension Offset, applies to spouses in households with split coverage.

Congress also put in place protections ensuring that not all employees with split coverage face a penalty. For example, the someone鈥檚 Social Security benefit by more than half of their government pension.

This rule, in effect, protects the vast majority of workers with split coverage. When the Social Security Administration in 2019, it found 19.6 million retirees who had worked a portion of their careers in state and local government positions without Social Security coverage. But thanks to this rule, 18 million of them (92%) faced no penalty at all. 

That left about 1.6 million retirees who did face a penalty. Like our hypothetical teacher, these people might be surprised 鈥� and angry 鈥� when they file for Social Security and discover their benefits will be reduced. But remember, these are people who already qualify for a substantial pension from their years of government service. They aren’t billionaires, but they aren’t exactly impoverished, either. It wouldn’t be fair to give them the same Social Security benefits as a low-income worker without a pension. 

Legislation to repeal the two provisions has in the Senate, and House members have already filed to get their version out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. Given a busy congressional schedule, an article from the Federal News Network suggests that couldn鈥檛 happen before November. 

But repealing the two provisions would be a costly, unfair mistake. And there鈥檚 a better option: Make Social Security coverage mandatory for all. That would simplify the program for everyone and remove the need for the two provisions.

Unions representing and other affected by the windfall provisions are behind the recent push to repeal them. At the same time, these groups efforts to make Social Security coverage mandatory in the public sector, as it is for all private-sector employees. 

But extending Social Security coverage to all state and local government employees would help the workers who need it the most. Research by and has found that many employees who lack coverage, especially lower-income workers, would be better off if they participated in Social Security than they are relying solely on their state pension plan.

If Congress wants to help teachers and other public workers, it should extend mandatory Social Security benefits to the public sector. No more split Social Security coverage, no more windfall provision or offset. Full Social Security participation 鈥� including taxes and benefits 鈥� for all.