While many republicans they called to protect or even expand Social security benefitsGOP lawmakers killed a bill that would have helped millions of Americans get higher monthly payments. The experts talked to Newsweek about the possible reasons behind the move.

A Social Security bill that would have repealed two rules that are sure to reduce benefits retirees was introduced by House Representatives Garret Graves, (R-LA) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA).

Despite the fact that the bill previously had a wide range of bipartisan support and Graves and Spanberger obtained the 218 signatures needed to bring the bill to the House floor, the Freedom Caucus blocked the bill from passage.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) won unanimous consent to put the Social Security bill on the table. This protocol has violated and causes the invoice to remain dormant for now. To be passed, lawmakers would have to vote according to the discharge regulations.

Or a new bill could be introduced with similar guidelines for Social Security recipients currently affected by waiver provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO).

These provisions reduce social security benefits in proportion to the amount of a beneficiary’s pension, which has an impact on people receiving pensions from work not covered by social security.

Newsweek reached out to Graves and Harris for comment via email.

The law, if implemented, would have cost $196 billion over 10 years, at a time when the Social Security Administration is already facing a funding shortfall that would reduce benefits through 2035.

“I think the Republicans have blocked this bill to delay any change until they get a House or Senate majority,” said Kevin Thompson, financial expert and founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group Newsweek. “Although they cited the cost of the package as a reason, the timing suggests a possible strategic move to maintain control.”

For many current Social Security recipients, the WEP and GPO take thousands of dollars out of their annual benefits, and many of them are retired civil service workers, former police officers, teachers and nurses.

“GPOs and WEPs are designed to prevent beneficiaries from receiving more than their fair share of benefits. To clarify, they do not reduce benefits for those entitled to social security and pension benefits. If someone hasn’t paid into Social Security, they shouldn’t expect full Social Security and pension benefits at the same time,” Thompson said.

Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, said it’s unclear whether the bill’s table is because lawmakers are against the idea or want to introduce a new bill in its place in the future .

“The bill in question extended Social Security benefits to a small group that had been excluded in the past because of provisions about combining those benefits with supplemental pensions from workers in certain fields,” Beene said. Newsweek.

He added: “The proposal was a popular one and won bipartisan support, which makes not addressing it for now all the more confusing. The benefits the beneficiaries would gain would greatly help them in the bloated economic times we are currently in.”