This year's study found a 3 percentage point gain in the buying power of Social Security benefits from January 2019 to January 2020. That should indicate that most retirees may have seen at least some prices go down on certain items during that period. But this is deflation — which is a strong signal that there may be no COLA next year. This year's 1.6 percent COLA was already low to begin with. A recent deep plunge in oil prices have all but wiped out the prospect of a COLA. .The findings show a dramatic drop in inflation from January of 2014 to January of 2015 — due almost entirely to the drop in oil prices. The deflationary trend, while making the price of petroleum products more affordable in the short term, could spell trouble ahead next year for retired and disabled beneficiaries who depend on Social Security for most of their income. The last time the drop in inflation was this steep was in 2009 — when no cost of living adjustment (COLA) was payable the following year. In fact, the drop in inflation is now so deep that TSCL's Social Security policy analyst and Advisor editor, Mary Johnson, forecasts that the COLA for 2016 will be around zero. Going without any COLA is like going without interest on savings and results in a lower Social Security income over time, due to the loss of compounding. .Pressure politicians. "Candidates who don't take a stand on Social Security in this important election year choose to put the program's strength at risk in the long-term," AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins said in a statement. "Though people of all ages rely on it, its importance to older Americans — already under tremendous pressure from wage stagnation and shrinking pensions — is only likely to grow." .Nonetheless, several Senators at Tuesday's hearing urged CMS to consider withdrawing the proposed payment changes. Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (UT) expressed concerns about the rule's potential unintended consequences. He said: "I believe this experiment is ill-conceived and likely to harm beneficiaries. It is an overreach on the part of CMS that, in my opinion, goes beyond the agency's statutory authority, extends nationwide, and requires all Medicare Part B providers to participate." .Since passage of Medicare in 1965 all seniors received the same benefits for the same standard premium. But in 2003, Congress took the unprecedented step of passing legislation that required "upper-income" seniors to pay increased premiums for Medicare Part B. Forcing these seniors to pay more for the same Medicare benefits is known as the "means test." .According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), for an age 65 retiree with average wages, a maximum benefit disparity of 10% would have arisen between the highest benefit under the old rules and the lowest benefit under the new rules if the 1977 assumptions had materialized. Under the economic conditions that actually arose, the disparity was 25%-two and one half times greater. .When Medicare Part B premiums spiked in 2015, Congress was not focused on the adequacy of the COLA. Instead, it was focused on the Medicare Part B funding lost when beneficiaries were protected from paying increased premiums. While the subsequent Medicare Part B premium increase for 2016 was reduced, it was still a very substantial increase of 16%, and all beneficiaries were required to repay the costs in higher Part B premiums in following years. Beneficiaries saw no growth in their net Social Security benefits in 2016, again in 2017 when the COLA was just 0.03% and, about half of all beneficiaries were once again affected in 2018 when a 2% COLA became payable. .TSCL has concerns about this approach, since it would mean that Social Security's Old Age and Survivor's Insurance (OASI) trust fund would receive 0.9 percent less in payroll tax revenues, worsening the retirement program's financing. In a recent poll conducted by TSCL, this approach received virtually no support from respondents – less than 1 percent said shifting revenues from one trust fund to another would be the best way to fix the program's solvency. .Pre-Election Recess Continues