Social Security’s next COLA projection might not go as far as retirees hope ⁠72%

By Eric Revell⁠74%

4/16/2026, 7:34:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Framing Effect, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 25.4% saturation with 142 hits. Analysis detected 1,263 faulty-reasoning hits from 559 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (5,953 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.90% of the article peer group.

American retirees who are receiving Social Security will see an annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) next year, and a new report projects that next year's benefit increase may be smaller than many retirees expect. 
A new analysis by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) predicts that Social Security's 2027 COLA will be 2.8%, which would be the same benefit boost as the 2026 COLA. 
That would amount to an increase in the average Social Security benefits check for retired workers of $56.69, raising the benefit from $2,024.77 to $2,081.46 per month. 
"Americans are right to worry about our current COLA projection," said TSCL Executive Director Shannon Benton. 
"The fact is that most senior households already get by on only about 58% as much income as their working-age counterparts, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a middle-class or working-class American who thinks the economy is doing well right now, especially as oil prices rise." 
NEW PROPOSAL WOULD CAP SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS AT $100K FOR WEALTHY COUPLES 
The Social Security Administration (SSA) computes the annual Social Security COLA using a variant of inflation data from the consumer price index (CPI) based on the months of July, August and September. 
The agency announces the COLA each October, although last year's announcement was delayed by a government shutdown. 
TSCL's estimate of a 2.8% COLA for 2027 was based on the year-over-year CPI-W reading coming in at 2.2% in both January and February, then rising to 3.3% in March. 
Inflation jumped in March, largely due to the energy supply shock caused by the Iran war disrupting the flow of oil from the Middle East because tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was at a standstill due to the conflict. 
LARRY FINK CALLS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM, SAYS INVESTING A PORTION OF FUNDS COULD STRENGTHEN THE PROGRAM 
Economists have warned that inflation may rise further in the next few months and could remain elevated through the end of the year depending on how long the energy impact of the conflict goes on, though there is uncertainty around those projections related to the war's duration and resolution. 
Social Security's main trust fund is being depleted due to the aging of America's population and rising enrollment, causing expenses from benefit payments to rise beyond what the trust fund and incoming payroll tax receipts can cover. 
Recent projections estimate it will reach insolvency in 2032, at which time benefits would be cut by an estimated 24% across the board to match incoming revenue. 
IRAN WAR COULD PUSH INFLATION HIGHER THIS YEAR, GOLDMAN SACHS SAYS 
TSCL also criticized a recent proposal to reform Social Security that would cap annual benefits for higher income Americans at $50,000 for an individual or $100,000 for couples. 
The Six Figure Limit proposal put forward by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) would only affect a small fraction of Americans. 
The group notes that while it wouldn't significantly delay the insolvency of Social Security trust funds on its own, it could "meaningfully delay insolvency in combination with other reforms." 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
TSCL's Benton said, "Reforming Social Security needs to follow a two-pronged approach, strengthening revenues and benefits at the same time to ensure prosperity for all Americans of all ages." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.5%Eric Revell: 2.6%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias14.5%This article: 10.6%Eric Revell: 4.7%FoxBusiness: 3.5%Anchoring Bias10.6%This article: 15.6%Eric Revell: 3.6%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic15.6%This article: 4.5%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.0%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Eric Revell: 11.0%FoxBusiness: 13.0%Framing Effect16.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Eric Revell: 9.5%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias5.2%This article: 15.9%Eric Revell: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias15.9%This article: 25.4%Eric Revell: 6.9%FoxBusiness: 7.8%Negativity Bias25.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Eric Revell: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.1%FoxBusiness: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.8%Eric Revell: 6.7%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority13.8%This article: 5.2%Eric Revell: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma5.2%This article: 4.8%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope4.8%This article: 6.6%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning6.6%This article: 18.1%Eric Revell: 4.2%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization18.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.1%Eric Revell: 3.4%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 5.2%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question5.2%This article: 10.4%Eric Revell: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%Eric Revell: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.2%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground5.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.6%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote11.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.2%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 5.2%Eric Revell: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.6%

559 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers50%attributed speech278writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageThe Senior Citizens League (TSCL) • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageShannon Benton • 16 words • 100.0% coverageShannon Benton • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSocial Security Administration (SSA) • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSocial Security Administration (SSA) • 17 words • 0.0% coverageThe Senior Citizens League (TSCL) • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageThe Senior Citizens League (TSCL) • 28 words • 0.0% coverageCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) • 25 words • 0.0% coverageCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageShannon Benton • 29 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Shannon Benton

100%flagged-word coverage
91 attributed words32% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Indoctrination+31.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Shannon Benton: 31.9%31.9%Unattributed Quote-0.0 ptsWriter: 17.6%Shannon Benton: 17.6%17.6%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Shannon Benton: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.