In reality, no Social Security reduction is small, because the loss compounds over time. The problem is especially unacceptable when this problem can be prevented by Congress in the first place. Individuals who were born in 1949 and who retired at age 66 with average benefits have lost about ,915 through the end of 2021, due to the reduction in the AWI in 200Their benefits today are about per month lower than what they otherwise would have received had they been born one year earlier. Even worse is the loss over time. Assuming that an individual lives to age 90, retirees born in 1949 would lose an additional ,297 in lifetime Social Security benefits—or even more, if their benefits are higher than average. This type of benefit reduction is known as a "notch" in benefits, and those affected might be referred to as the "1949 notch babies." .The explosive cost of specialty drugs, that offer major treatment advances for people with life-threatening diseases, is not only threatening access to these treatments, but threatens to drain retirement savings, and leave widows and widowers in poverty after the death of a spouse. Unlike Medicare Advantage plans, and health insurance plans covering working-age adults, Medicare Part D has no annual out-of-pocket maximum to protect people with the highest drug costs. .Here's how the coverage gap works. Once individuals and their Medicare Part D plans spend the initial coverage amount (,310 in 2016) on covered prescription drugs in a calendar year, beneficiaries hit the doughnut hole. Once in the doughnut hole, coinsurance on covered drugs is not only higher, one must also pay a substantial amount out-of-pocket to reach the limit for catastrophic coverage. For brand-name drugs in the coverage gap, individuals are responsible for 45% of the cost, and for generic drugs, they're responsible for 58%. Once out-of-pocket costs for those in the doughnut hole total ,850, catastrophic drug coverage takes effect, and Part D plans pay 95% of prescription drug costs until the calendar year ends. .Wall Street economists are in the midst of a growing debate over whether we are in for "the return of inflation." (Oh, go ahead and snort. I did too when I first read about this.) .Since 2000, COLAs have increased Social Security benefits by a total of 55%, yet typical senior expenses over the same period grew by 101.7%. The average Social Security benefit in 2000 was 6 per month. That benefit grew to ,262.40 by 2021 due to COLA increases. However, because retiree costs are rising at a far more rapid pace than the COLA, this study found that a Social Security benefit of ,645.60 per month in 2020 would be required just to maintain the same level of buying power as in 2000. .TSCL recently asked their members and supporters how no COLA in 2016 would impact their budgets. "They told us they will struggle to cover the costs of prescription drugs, car repairs, property taxes, rising food costs, and even their most basic needs next year," Cates says. "Simply put, Americans living on a fixed income cannot afford to go without a COLA, and we are concerned about the impact recent years of record - low COLAs will have on the long-term adequacy of benefits for millions of people who depend on COLAs," Cates explains. .But the money to cover beneficiaries' share of premium costs still needs to come from somewhere. That leaves the 30% of Part B enrollees who aren't protected by hold harmless to make up the difference through steeply higher Part B premiums. Many of those people are facing a steep Part B premium increase from 1.80 per month to an estimated 9.00, the highest increase in 27 years. Those not protected by the hold harmless provision include: .Surveys have found that public opposition to cutting benefits is widespread, but there is support for changes that would make Social Security payroll taxes more equitable. According to TSCL's 2017 Senior Survey, 73% of survey participants support abolishing the taxable maximum cap and to apply the full 12.4% payroll tax to all earnings. .Congress first approved the WEP in 1983 as part of a large package of Social Security reforms that included increasing the full retirement age. The stated intent was to remove an unintended advantage for workers who collect non-covered pensions, but also did some work in jobs covered by Social Security.