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.

Political and Philosophical Compromise Key to Saving Social Security

Published in RINewsToday on August 31, 2026.

Just before the nation celebrated Social Security’s 91st birthday on August 15, the Senate Finance Committee held an August 5 hearing titled “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency.” The hearing put a spotlight on the program’s looming financial challenges.

It explored possible legislative approaches to shore up its finances before the trust fund reaches insolvency in roughly six years, resulting in significant benefit cuts if Congress fails to act. The hearing followed an earlier Senate Finance Committee hearing in June that also examined the future of Social Security.

At both hearings, lawmakers and witnesses warned about the looming fiscal crisis of Social Security, as documented in the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report, released in June. The latest Trustees’ report projected that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will become insolvent by 2032. When this occurs, incoming payroll taxes would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits unless Congress acts.

The Clock is Ticking

Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) joined the Senate Finance Committee in sounding the alarm about the impending insolvency of Social Security.

Against this backdrop, an Aug. 26 CRFB blog posting challenges what the budget watchdog calls a long-held myth about Social Security — that the program works much like a personal retirement account. Under that view, workers contribute money through payroll taxes during their employment years and, when they retire, receive their own money back.

That is not how Social Security works, CRFB argues.

Benefits are calculated using a worker’s earnings history and a benefit formula, rather than an individual account containing that worker’s contributions. Social Security’s progressive benefit formula also provides what CRFB calls “proportionately greater protection” to lower-income workers. While Social Security benefits are earned benefits, CRFB argues that does not mean retirees are simply withdrawing money they personally deposited into the system over their working lives.

“Fixing the system will require putting this myth to bed,” says CRFB.

Citing a 2025 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis comparing lifetime Social Security taxes with benefits, CRFB says the data show that many workers will collect more in benefits than they and their employers paid in payroll taxes, even after adjusting those contributions to their present value.

Simply put, CRFB calculates that, on average, retirees are scheduled to receive back all of their contributions, plus interest, plus an additional 33 cents in benefits for every $1 they and their employers paid into the program. CRFB points out that individual experiences can vary widely. Someone who dies shortly after retirement may collect far less than someone who lives into their 90s. Married couples, surviving spouses, disabled workers and people with different earnings histories can also have very different outcomes.

But CRFB stresses that it is not arguing that Social Security benefits should be cut to match what individual workers contributed. It calls that the wrong conclusion to draw from its analysis. Instead, the organization argues that policymakers should stop treating every dollar of scheduled benefits as “untouchable personal savings.”

With Social Security’s financing deadline rapidly approaching, CRFB says Congress should consider changes on both sides of the ledger — benefits and revenues — as part of any bipartisan effort to ensure the long-term solvency of the program.

“The most important conclusion [of this study] is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the benefit that is directly tied to how much you paid in. And so, as we’re evaluating reform, this idea that, well, I paid for it, therefore you cannot adjust the benefit formula at all, is nonsense,” says Marc Goldwein, CRFB’s senior policy director, who has studied Social Security for more than 20 years.

Unraveling a False Narrative

Goldwein says that the argument that scheduled benefits are “untouchable” has created a “false narrative” used by some Social Security advocacy groups. He compares their unwillingness to consider changes to benefits to the anti-tax position long associated with conservative activist Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform.

Goldwein offers examples of potential Social Security reforms that Congress might consider as it hammers out legislation. These reforms include: applying the employer payroll tax to all forms of compensation, including health care benefits and stock options; capping benefits at $100,000 per couple; raising the taxable wage maximum; and potentially adjusting the retirement age while protecting lower-income workers.

Goldwein warns Congress not to use general revenues to ensure the long-term financial stability of Social Security. He estimates that doing so would add more than $190 trillion in borrowing in today’s dollars, potentially leading to skyrocketing debt and a fiscal crisis while fundamentally changing Social Security’s contributory structure.

Ultimately, Goldwein says neither political party is likely to get everything it wants.

Getting a Social Security reform package through Congress “will take compromise on all parties,” says Goldwein, pointing to the 60 votes generally needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

“It’s either a deal or there’s a 22% benefit cut,” he adds.

On the Other Side of the Coin

Maria Freese, senior Social Security policy analyst for the Washington, D.C. based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, stresses that Social Security is not an investment plan but social insurance.

“Like any insurance program, it’s wrong to calculate the worth of the program from the standpoint of a ‘rate of return.’ If you spend your entire life buying fire insurance but your house never burns down, would CRFB argue it’s a ‘bad investment’ and that homeowners should forgo insurance? Of course not. And why should we expect to get a specific ‘rate of return’ on Social Security when we don’t ask the same of any other federal program?” she says.

Workers with low lifetime earnings receive a much higher income replacement rate from Social Security than middle-income workers, who in turn receive a higher replacement rate than higher-income workers, says Freese, noting that Social Security is designed as a progressive benefit program.

“Also, Social Security ‘return’ arguments differ by birth cohort,” adds Freese. Baby Boomers, for instance, will end up receiving a higher income replacement rate than younger generations, she explains, in large part because of the increase in Social Security’s full retirement age enacted in 1983. So even if today’s retirees are getting a 133% “rate of return,” that rate will continue trending downward over time.

Freese says “legacy debt” is another way of looking at intergenerational differences.

“Early beneficiaries got a lot more back in benefits than they paid in payroll taxes, which kept the Trust Funds from building any assets in the first decades of the program. Ida Mae Fuller, the first person to receive a Social Security check (back in 1940), is the best example, as she paid in $22.75 and received almost $23,000 in benefits before she died at age 100,” she says.

CRFB is hiding behind a ‘money’s worth’ smokescreen to cover the truth that Social Security’s benefits, which are too low, are easily affordable if wealthier Americans start paying their fair share,” charges Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, who also chairs the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. “The money’s worth argument is not new. Importantly, it willfully refuses to acknowledge that Social Security is insurance,” she says.

Altman asks: “Do those who do not become so disabled they can no longer support themselves through work get less than their money’s worth from Social Security’s disability insurance? If they don’t die prematurely, do they get less than their money’s worth from Social Security’s survivors’ insurance? Do those who do become disabled and those who die leaving dependents get more than their so-called money’s worth?”

Over the years, Altman has been consistent in her solution for shoring up Social Security’s finances. “As with other insurance, dozens of actuaries project the cost of benefits, and the income needed to finance them. Americans overwhelmingly agree that Social Security’s benefits are too low. They want the wealthiest to start paying their fair share, so the projected shortfall is eliminated, and the cost of increased benefits is covered,” she says.

For Goldwein, the choices facing Congress are clear – but hardly easy. Lawmakers can do “the grown-up thing” — as lawmakers did in passing the landmark 1983 reforms — and make the political compromises necessary to ensure Social Security’s financial stability. Or they can keep kicking the can down the road, borrowing more and leaving an even bigger problem for the next generation of workers and retirees.

A Final Note…

That’s where the political and philosophical divide comes into clear focus.

CRFB’s Goldwein argues that scheduled benefits cannot be treated as untouchable simply because workers paid payroll taxes throughout their careers. Social Security Advocates Freese and Altman counter that Social Security is social insurance, not a personal investment account, and that its value cannot be measured simply by comparing dollars paid in with dollars received.

However, Goldwein, Freese and Altman agree on this fact: Congress cannot continue to ignore the looming insolvency of Social Security. The real political challenge for both sides is to find common ground between competing philosophies. Ultimately any legislative reform to Social Security must protect the financial security that this program provides while ensuring the program can keep its promises to future generations yet to come.

As this debate continues to unfold, you can see that there is no shortage of policy ideas being floated inside the beltway to fix Social Security. There is no shortage of experts, too.

What is in short supply is time, say CRFB and the Social Security advocates.

With the clock ticking toward 2032, Congress will eventually have to make hard political decisions, determining whether compromise is possible. For millions of Americans who depend on their monthly Social Security check, that decision is not a theoretical exercise. It is about whether the monthly check they count on will be there — and how much it will be.

After more than 90 years, Social Security deserves better than another round of political finger-pointing. It deserves a bipartisan solution now.

To read CRFB’s Trust Fund Solutions that detail solutions to help improve the solvency of Social Security, along with promoting economic growth, strengthening retirement security, enabling continued work, improving seniors’ health, and fixing the country’s finances, go to Trust Fund Solutions | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

To watch the Aug. 5 Senate Finance Committee hearing on approaches for addressing Social Security’s Solvency, go to [2026-08-05] Hearing: Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency | The United States Senate Committee on Finance.