Tag Archives for AARP

Just Days Away: Social Security to Announce 2027 COLA Increase

Published in RINewsToday on October 12, 2026

In just a few days, nearly 279,000 Rhode Islanders who rely on Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) will learn how much their monthly checks will increase in 2027 when the Social Security Administration (SSA) announces next year’s cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). Social Security recipients will see the increase in January, while SSI recipients will receive their adjusted payments on Dec. 31, 2026, because New Year’s Day is a federal holiday. The additional income will help them keep pace with rising costs.

Older Rhode Island beneficiaries will be joining 75 million Americans—including roughly 71 million Social Security beneficiaries and between 7.3 and 7.5 million SSI recipients—awaiting this highly anticipated news.

SSA is expected to announce the official 2027 COLA on Wednesday, Oct. 14, following the release of September inflation data by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to the Virginia-based The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), the SSA’s COLA for 2026 was 2.8 percent, somewhat higher than the 2.5 percent COLA implemented at the start of 2025. TSCL predicts that the COLA for 2027 will tick up to 3.5 percent.  AARP experts project an even higher COLA increase for 2027 than TSCL estimates, at 3.6 percent.

Congress enacted the COLA provision as part of the 1972 Social Security Amendments, and automatic annual COLAs began in 1975, says SSA, noting that before then Congress could only increase this benefit through special legislation.  The new provision tied COLAs to the annual increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W).

SSA calculates the COLA by comparing the average CPI-W for July, August and September with the average for the same three months of the previous year.  The percentage is rounded to the nearest tenth of one percent and determines the annual adjustment.

With the 3.5 percent projection, the average beneficiary’s monthly benefit increases by $67.90. The current average beneficiary receives $1,940.08 in their monthly Social Security check. With a 3.5 percent COLA, that would rise to $ 2,007.98, estimates TSCL

If TSCL’s calculation holds, the 2027 COLA would land right in the middle of the ranking historically—ranking 19th among all COLA adjustments since the federal government started using its current inflation math in 1977. By comparison, the recent boost seniors received at the start of 2026 was a bit more modest, tying for 27th place.

“The biggest thing we’re watching with the COLA announcement coming are short-term shocks to the economy that push inflation way up or down in the next 30 days. Of the three CPI-W figures used to calculate the COLA, two are already in,” said TSCL Executive Director Shannon G. Benton in a statement releasing the 2027 estimated projections.

“No matter if the COLA announcement comes in slightly higher or slightly lower than our prediction, seniors will probably end up disappointed in the long run,” said Benton, noting that older Americans allocate their budgets differently than people still in the workforce, so inflation hits them differently. The consumer price index (CPI) captures the experience of urban wage earners, which doesn’t represent the average senior’s budget, she adds.

“The COLA only happening once a year puts life on hold for a lot of seniors. When prices rise, they don’t rise next January when your benefit check goes up. They rise right now. We need to consider COLAs that compound quarterly or monthly so seniors can keep up throughout the year when inflation comes in above Federal Reserve targets, like in 2026,” adds Benton.

Advocates Push for CPI-E Index

In a recent AARP Sept. 11 blog post, “Social Security COLA 2027: An Early Look at How Much Payments Could Increase,” writer Deirdre Shesgreen interviewed Rich Johnson, the vice president for financial security at the AARP Public Policy Institute. Johnson emphasized that the organization’s COLA forecast is meant to give older adults a head start on managing their 2027 finances.  “Family budgets have been under increasing pressure because of rising prices,” Johnson noted. “The sooner that we can give them reliable information as to how much their benefits might [increase next year], the sooner they can start planning,” he said.

“Most seniors depend on Social Security for some or all of their income, and the program’s annual Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) for inflation help keep them from falling behind,” says Max Richtman, President & CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, noting that even the estimated 3.5-3.6% increase will barely be enough for seniors to tread water.

“That’s because the COLA is based on an inflation index that does not account for the impact of inflation on seniors’ true expenses, especially health care costs – which are rising faster than the general inflation rate,” said Richtman, calling for the adoption of the CPI-E (Consumer Price Index for the Elderly).  This CPI index is designed to better reflect older American’s spending patterns.

“What we know is that when the COLA is announced, it will be far too low to make up for the crushing prices everybody is facing right now. But seniors and those on fixed incomes are being crushed the hardest,” said Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works.

His concerns come as Census Bureau figures show that the poverty rate among Americans aged 65 and older rose from 9.4 percent in 2020 to 15.4 percent in 2025, according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which accounts for medical expenses and other living costs.

“And still Republican proposals, when we see them, include provisions to cut back on the COLA, which is just a cruel benefit cut. We need to expand Social Security, increase benefits, raise the COLA, and pay for it by having billionaires pay the same rate on all of their income into Social Security. Just like the rest of us do,” argued Lawson.

Improving SSA’s Benefit Calculation Formula

TSCL advocates for the Social Security 2100 Act, legislation championed by Congressman John Larson (D-Connecticut), first introduced in 2017 and reintroduced in 2026.

Lawmakers reintroduced this legislative proposal to provide long-term relief to seniors losing buying power due to high inflation.  The bill would raise benefits by 2%, set the new minimum benefit to 125% of the Federal poverty line, change the COLA calculation to the CPI for the Elderly (CPI-E), and improve the benefits calculation formula, said TSCL.

“Although the Social Security 2100 Act is unlikely to pass in the current Congress, it should.  The bill is the gold standard for Social Security reform and accomplishes the majority of changes older Americans want to see in the program,” says TSCL’s Benton in a statement released on July 14. “The reality is that poverty is increasing rapidly among American seniors, who make up the fastest-growing portion of the homeless population. Adjusting the minimum benefit to above the Federal poverty line would almost certainly slow this trend, although more holistic efforts may be required to stop it entirely,” she says.

Déjà Vu: “It’s the Economy, Stupid”

Published in the Blackstone Valley Call & Times on September 8, 2026

By Herb Weiss

As reported by national media, President Donald Trump, standing in front of grocery items during an Aug. 24 campaign press conference at a golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, President Trump declared, “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.” He pledged to lower the costs of everyday goods, including groceries and cars, as well as energy prices.

During his campaign, Trump on several occasions linked lower prices to an increase in the country’s domestic energy production by using the phrase “drill, baby, drill”. He maintained that cheaper energy would decrease the cost of producing and transporting food and other goods.

The time is running out; since there are 62 days left until the midterm elections, a national press campaign has been held as part of the ‘Republican Price Tag Campaign’ organized by Unrig Our Economy, Social Security Works and the Economic Security Project to advise voters about the promises made by Trump and congressional Republicans to reduce household costs and to argue that those promises have not been kept.

Household Expenses Skyrocket

Hosted by Unrig Our Economy, Economic Security Project Action, Social Security Works and Navigator Research, the virtual briefing highlighted an estimate that American families are paying $3,800 more each year for health care, food, energy, clothing and other necessities under President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress.

Unrig Our Economy Campaign Director Leor Tal, who moderated the call, said Trump and congressional Republicans pledged to rein in rising prices, but argued that Republican economic policies have instead increased costs for working families and small businesses.

While wealthy Americans are getting tax breaks, Tal charged, working families are paying more for health care, groceries, energy and clothing. “Families are feeling every dollar of the Republican Price Tag,” she said.

During the 30-minute press call, two Democratic lawmakers and small business owners from Michigan, Arizona and Nebraska shared firsthand accounts of how rising costs are affecting their livelihoods. They pointed to tariffs and declining consumer spending as making it more difficult to operate their businesses and provide for their families.

In addition, Washington, D.C.-based Navigator Research, a Democratic-leaning public opinion research organization founded in 2018, presented polling data on how Americans view the economy and the rising costs hitting their household budgets.

“The Joint Economic Committee issued new analysis that found the average American family has had to pay almost $4,000 more because of rising prices under the policies and actions of this administration and my Republican friends in Congress,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA).

“What’s driving this figure? The biggest buckets are health care, grocery, energy costs, and housing,” said Beyer, the top-ranking Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Beyer also pointed to tariffs. “Our tariff policy is absolutely the highest it’s been since before Smoot-Hawley,” he said.

Health care and food assistance cuts are also hitting families, Beyer charged, citing changes affecting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Tariffs Drive Up Household Costs

Rep. Gabe Amo, representing Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District, charged that congressional Republicans are supporting “a tariff regime that is raising costs” while taking the focus away from the economic challenges facing Americans.

During Aug. recess, Amo met with constituents across the first Congressional District and heard that people are feeling the squeeze. They told him how hard it was to afford groceries.  Primary care providers shared how the Trump administration’s cuts to health care are making it harder for people to get care.


“I’m working with Unrig Our Economy and Social Security Works to make sure these voices are heard,” he said.

But Amo brought a little optimism to the call’s otherwise downbeat assessment of the economy.

“I’m an optimist. I believe we can do better and will do better,” he said, adding that voters will have a choice in the upcoming election over the direction the nation takes.

“I look forward to continuing to hear from the people facing the challenges created by this administration and working on behalf of all Americans who deserve a government that wants them to have a better life,” Amo said.

For Michael Howard, a small-business owner in Macomb County, Michigan, rising prices have hit both his family and his business.

“As a parent, the rising cost of our economy feels crushing. And then as a small business owner, having that experience magnified is also pretty devastating for our business,” he said.

Howard says rising costs have made it harder to maintain staffing while customers have less money to spend. “As a dad just trying to put food on the table for my family, these increases to the cost of gas and necessities really set us back,” he said.

Increased lumber costs have also affected Howard’s custom furniture business. “The tariff policy is absolutely devastating for someone who builds with lumber,” he said.

Jenn Mawcinitt, owner of Wildlings Toy Boutique in Phoenix, Arizona, sees the impact when customers walk through her door.

“We have seen that our customers are having a harder time buying necessities like their gas and their food and their school supplies,” she said.

Tariffs, she says, have also dramatically increased toy prices. A mother who once came into her store looking for a $20 birthday gift may now find the same type of toy priced at $ 29.99.

“I think that people were promised lower costs during this administration, and I’ve heard it over and over again,” Mawcinitt said. “All I have seen is how this is affecting families, and how costs are rising at an exorbitant rate.”

Former York, Nebraska, business owner Jeff Du pointed to the rising cost of farm equipment. He said that new irrigation equipment that cost about $68,000 five years ago now costs more than $110,000.

Du says tariffs are helping drive up machinery costs. Add increased labor expenses, he noted, and farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase new equipment, with some leaving the business altogether.

During the final minutes of the virtual call, Melissa Tufanian, managing director of Navigator Research, turned to the polling numbers.

According to Tufanian, 73% of Americans view the economy negatively. More than three in five Americans are uneasy about their personal finances, which she said is the highest level since the start of Trump’s second term.

The polling also found that 25% of Americans are delaying the purchase of a home or car, while 15% have delayed or avoided medical care to save money. Another 25% are taking on more debt or using buy-now, pay-later programs, even to purchase groceries. Twenty percent reported withdrawing money from emergency funds to pay bills.

Navigator’s polling even found that nearly one in 10 Americans have sold blood plasma for extra income.

On the other hand, Republicans offer a much different assessment of the economy. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) argues that Republican tax cuts are allowing workers and families to keep more of their paychecks while encouraging businesses to invest, expand and hire.

Following the release of the August jobs report, Smith pointed to increased private-sector hiring and manufacturing growth as evidence that Republican economic policies are working.

The Trump administration also rejects Democratic criticism that its tariff policies are simply resulting in higher consumer prices. The White House argues that tariffs are prompting foreign companies to produce in the United States, thereby protecting American industries from cheaper foreign competition and leading to greater investment and more job creation within the country.

A Final Note…

Almost two months later, according to Fortune, Trump told a crowd at Wheeler High School in Marietta, Georgia, that affordability was “a word made up by the Democrats.”

AARP released the 2026 Financial Security Trends Survey on May 28, finding that 37% of older adults feel financially insecure, while 60% worry about having enough money to last through their retirement years.

Democrats certainly aren’t treating affordability as a made-up issue. They are betting that what voters, especially older voters, pay at the grocery store, gas pump, doctor’s office, and checkout counter will help determine who controls Congress after the midterm elections. 

James Carville, a top strategist for Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign, famously summed up that winning campaign’s political strategy in just five words: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

More than three decades later, Democrats are dusting off Carville’s political playbook.

Whether it works again will be up to the voters.

Senate Finance Panel Begins Discussion on Fixing Social Security

Published in RINewsToday on August 17, 2026

Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI) is projected to reach insolvency by late 2032, triggering an automatic 22% across-the-board benefit cut if Congress fails to act, according to the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report released June 9. The clock is ticking — fewer than 2,300 days remain.

What would that mean for older Americans? Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), put a dollar figure on the potential impact in his August 5 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Acomparable benefit reduction imposed today, he said, would mean an average loss of about $500 a month for beneficiaries.

For a typical newly retired couple, that could translate into an annual loss of roughly $12,000 in Social Security income — a substantial hit for households that depend on the program to pay for housing, food, utilities, health care and other basic expenses. Goldwein’s testimony underscores what the Trustees’ numbers mean beyond the percentages: a future across-the-board cut could have a very real impact on retirees’ daily lives.

Senate Finance Panel Takes Up Social Security’s Future

Just nine days before Social Security’s 91st birthday on Aug. 15, the Senate Committee on Finance held an Aug. 5 hearing, “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency,” to spotlight the program’s looming financial challenges and explore possible legislative approaches. The hearing brought together policy experts and advocacy organizations to discuss how Congress might move toward a solution.

The more than two-hour hearing examined the merits of using a commission versus the regular legislative process. Senators and witnesses also discussed increasing revenue from higher earners, raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap, adjusting benefits, and changing the retirement age.

Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) opened the hearing by warning that Social Security’s OASI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in late 2032. If Congress fails to act, incoming program revenues would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits, he said.

The last comprehensive congressional effort to address Social Security’s solvency took place more than 40 years ago, culminating in the Social Security Amendments of 1983. Signed by President Ronald Reagan, the bipartisan legislation gradually raised the full retirement age, subjected some higher-income Social Security benefits to federal income taxation and increased payroll taxes to strengthen the program’s finances.

Crapo pointed to the 1983 reforms as an example of how an outside commission might help break legislative gridlock. He also cited his participation in a later bipartisan fiscal commission, commonly known as the Greenspan Commission, whose recommendations ultimately failed to win the support needed to move forward.

Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) challenged the idea of creating another commission, arguing that Congress should take responsibility for solving the problem rather than sending it to an outside panel.

“Instead of ‘talking about talking,’ this body should get to work on finding a resolution to the Social Security solvency challenge and having that debate in public view,” Wyden said.

Crapo responded that the hearing was not intended to promote a specific proposal but to examine a broad range of ideas.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) pushed back against Democratic criticism that Republicans were seeking to cut benefits, saying Congress needs to be willing to consider different approaches to the problem.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) took a much harsher view of the program, calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and arguing that money collected from taxpayers has already been spent.

Rhode Island’s Whitehouse Calls for Answers

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pressed Republicans for a specific plan to address Social Security’s finances.

“Where’s the Republican proposal? Where is it? It doesn’t exist,”

Whitehouse charged, arguing that Republicans were unwilling to publicly embrace proposals that could result in benefit reductions.

Whitehouse said Democrats have legislation that would make Social Security solvent “for as far as the actuarial eye can see” without cutting benefits.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) focused on raising more revenue from higher-income Americans by increasing the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

Warren noted that the payroll tax currently applies only up to a certain level of earnings, meaning high-income workers pay Social Security taxes on a smaller percentage of their total income than most middle-income workers.

Sanders framed the issue in simpler terms, asking whether wealthy Americans should pay the same percentage of their income into Social Security as firefighters and nurses.

But not every senator framed the debate in partisan terms.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) observed that conversations about Social Security often “immediately” become fear-mongering, with the discussion centered on taking benefits away.

“We’re actually trying to be able to get to a point where no one loses benefits,” Lankford said, noting that the goal should be long-term stabilization.

Lankford acknowledged that having a “grown-up conversation” about stabilizing Social Security’s finances and resolving the problem remains a real challenge.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) also called for bipartisan action.  “We’ve got to fix this and that means working together. There’s a lot of great ideas out there. If we would just make this a focus and a priority, we can get something done,” she said.

Their comments underscored a central question facing Congress: Can lawmakers move beyond the political rhetoric surrounding Social Security and find enough common ground to actually fix the program?

AARP: Keep Social Security at the Table

Nancy A. LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer, questioned whether another special commission is the best way forward.

“The history of special commissions is littered with very good intentions and failed results,” LeaMond told the committee. She argued that Social Security’s future should be addressed directly by Congress, which has jurisdiction over the program and a long history of tackling difficult Social Security issues.

LeaMond reminded senators that Social Security remains the foundation of retirement security for millions of Americans. She noted that it provides more than half of household income for 43% of older American households and provides at least 90% of income for nearly 12 million Americans age 65 and older.

Social Security’s impact also extends beyond individual beneficiaries, LeaMond said. “Every dollar paid in Social Security benefits generates two dollars of economic activity, supporting 12.2 million jobs and $2 trillion in economic output each year,” she said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) acknowledged AARP’s efforts to protect Social Security, including its television advertising campaign warning against benefit cuts. But Grassley urged AARP and other organizations to do more to educate the public about the looming automatic reductions.

“We’ve got to wake this entire nation up to the fact that there’s going to be 22% cuts if we don’t do something right now,” Grassley said.

Goldwein told the committee that Social Security’s financial problems can be addressed if Congress begins the process rather than continuing to delay action.

In his testimony, Goldwein described CRFB’s Trust Fund Solutions initiative, which offers potential approaches for restoring Social Security’s solvency. Among the ideas discussed are changes to the taxation of benefits, expanding the payroll tax base, limiting benefits for some high earners, and encouraging longer workforce participation.

The dollar figure Goldwein cited — an average reduction of about $500 a month under a comparable benefit cut — puts the Trustees’ warning into perspective. For retirees already struggling to keep pace with rising housing, food and health care costs, losing another $500 a month would not be an abstract budget number. It could mean difficult choices between paying bills, buying groceries or filling a prescription.

Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center also called for Congress to move quickly, arguing that the most important part of Social Security reform may simply be getting the process started before continued delays make the problem harder and more expensive to solve.

Rebecca D. Vallas, CEO of the National Academy of Social Insurance, told the committee that the decisions Congress makes about Social Security will rank among the most important work lawmakers undertake in generations.

Vallas cited a survey of more than 2,200 Americans conducted by NASI in partnership with AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The survey found that 85% of respondents favored preventing benefit reductions or increasing benefits, even if that would require raising taxes on some or all Americans. Only 15% preferred benefit reductions to tax increases.

Support for raising revenue rather than cutting benefits crossed party, income, education, and generational lines, Vallas said.

A Final Note…

“Social Security is too important to millions of Americans for Congress to take shortcuts or empower fast-track commissions to do their job. This is an opportunity to show that Washington can work, that it can deliver the results that the American people are demanding, and that it can achieve this goal without waiting until the very last minute to act,” says submitted testimony by Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

The message from the hearing was clear: Social Security’s financial problems are real, the clock is ticking, and Congress has no shortage of policy ideas.

What remains uncertain is whether Democrats and Republicans can put aside their philosophical differences long enough to agree on a bipartisan solution.

After 43 years and 4 months since the enactment of Social Security reforms in 1983, the stakes are simply too high for millions of older Americans to wait much longer.  Lawmakers must roll up their sleeves and get the work done.