Saving Social Security

Many posts have discussed Social Security and Medicare.

 Jessica Riedl at The Atlantic:

Since the mid-1990s, Social Security trustees have warned lawmakers that insolvency was coming in the 2030s. Why are lawmakers seemingly content to wait until we reach that cliff, now projected for 2032? Because so many voters misunderstand how the system works and steadfastly refuse to accept the changes needed to fix it. Interest groups have capitalized on those fears, savaging any politician who dares to touch senior benefits or taxes. When House Republican Leader Paul Ryan proposed reforming Medicare, opponents ran a television ad portraying him pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff.

 As policy, Social Security is not complicated. Closing the gap between revenues and benefits involves three broad levers: raising payroll taxes, hiking the eligibility age, and trimming benefit formulas for wealthier seniors. Fixing Social Security is a matter of negotiating how far to pull each lever. I’ve attended policy dinners where Republican and Democratic lawmakers quietly outlined, with relative ease, a plausible deal that would gradually raise the normal eligibility age from 67 to about 69, trim benefits for higher earners, and raise the annual earnings limit for the Social Security payroll tax to somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000.

...

Social Security actuaries calculate that eliminating the wage cap (without those taxes accruing additional benefits) would keep the system out of deficit for just three years and close only about half of its long-term shortfall. So additional major solvency reforms are still necessary.

...

Even liberal economists estimate that additional tax revenues begin leveling off as marginal tax rates reach the high 50s, and they begin losing money at rates somewhere between 60 and 73 percent. This leaves room to raise marginal tax rates on high earners by perhaps 6 to 12 percentage points. Raising the rich’s rates past that point may provide spiteful satisfaction but could reduce tax revenues, as high earners either stop earning additional wages or shift their compensation to lower-taxed investments or foreign jurisdictions.

...

Myths, Misinformation, and the Founding

 

Many posts have discussed myths and misinformation. 

View on Threads

There's something odd about being so self-righteous when you're so wrong. Mamdani is, of course, correct, and Posobiec is wrong - New York was the first capital of the United States of America. pic.twitter.com/ytYUU9tHXr

— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) July 6, 2026

No…the Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights including Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness. “Made in the image of God” is from the Bible. I guess its easy to confuse 2 things you’ve never read https://t.co/x729uCghhP

— Andrew—#IAmTheResistance (@AmoneyResists) July 5, 2026

Income Inequality 1826-2026

Many posts have discussed economic and educational inequality. 

Bruce Mehlman:

Individual incomes have increased exponentially but not evenly. But while 2026 shows the highest market inequality of the five eras, overall inequality is lower than most… taxes and government transfers today redistribute far more than in earlier centuries.

 

Civic Ignorance on America's 250th Birthday

Many posts have discussed what Americans do and do not know about their government.

Emily Ekins at Cato:

A new national survey from the Cato Institute, conducted in collaboration with Morning Consult of 2,253 Americans ahead of July 4th and America’s 250th anniversary, finds nearly half (46%) of Americans don’t know what America’s 250th anniversary commemorates. A little more than half (53%) correctly answered that it was the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

Despite civic ignorance, overwhelming majorities are grateful (86%) and proud (79%) to be Americans. Most also believe America is a land of opportunity (61%), and even more believe the American Dream (74%) is available to them personally. As the nation celebrates its birth, most Americans feel positive (76%) about the nation’s founding, and 70% believe its founding principles remain relevant today. In particular, overwhelming majorities believe the US Constitution is important for protecting our rights and freedoms (86%) and for enabling America’s prosperity (82%).

However, nearly 6 in 10 believe the country has moved away from the founding principles, and 56% worry the US could stop being a free country within the next 50 years. People believe corruption, concentrations and abuse of power, and ignoring founding principles could lead to the country’s demise. Americans support constitutional limits, dividing power, and checking the power of the president to maintain their freedoms. For instance, 58% say no political party should be trusted with too much power, 55% say the US Constitution should place firm limits on what the government is allowed to do, even if it makes it harder to solve problems, and 72% say the president should have to obey Supreme Court rulings even when he disagrees.

Yet, a significant minority is willing to bend the rules when it suits their advantage. Four in 10 Americans think it’s acceptable if a president they support stretched the Constitution to get what they want.

Another risk to the country is low substantive civic knowledge on basic governance questions. For instance, while 77% know George Washington was the first president, 58% don’t know what the main purpose of the US Constitution is, and 57% don’t know the reason we declared independence from Great Britain and created our government with limited powers.

Capitalism (52%) is viewed somewhat more favorably than socialism (37%). However, people are evenly divided on socialism, with equal shares who are favorable and unfavorable. Gen Z stands out with more who are supportive of socialism (53%) than capitalism (45%). The survey found the “Democratic Socialist” label can both help and harm a candidate about equally. While 39% said they’d be more likely to vote for a Democratic Socialist candidate, 40% said they’d be less likely, and 22% weren’t sure either way. Democrats (61%) and Gen Z (51%) reported they’d be likely to vote for a candidate with the Democratic Socialist label.

The Hardest Constitution to Amend

There has not been a constitutional convention since the original in Philadelphia. A 2016 report from the Congressional Research Service discusses the process of calling a convention, as well as the questions and uncertainties surrounding that process. There have been 27 amendments, but passing one is very hard.

 Drew DeSilver at Pew:

In Pew Research Center surveys, Americans overwhelmingly favor several proposed changes to the U.S. political system, from term and age limits for government officials to campaign finance limitations. But many of those changes would require amending the Constitution, which is extremely difficult. The Constitution has been in effect for 237 years but has been formally amended just 27 times.

Using a classification scheme developed by the late political scientist Donald S. Lutz, we scored the amendment rules of 101 democratic constitutions. (The other five democracies have “uncodified” constitutions, meaning their governance rules are distributed across multiple statutes, legal precedents, customs and unwritten norms.) For constitutions that contain more than one amendment procedure, we used the “least difficult” path, which may or may not be the most frequently employed.

Of all 101 constitutions, the U.S. Constitution has the second-most onerous amendment process. Amendments must be approved by two-thirds votes in both the House and Senate – itself a tall order in these polarized times – and then be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, or 38 of 50.

The only democracy whose constitution is even harder to change is the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), a former U.S. trust territory in the South Pacific with about 76,000 inhabitants. The easiest path to changing the FSM’s constitution involves two separate two-thirds majority votes in the 14-person legislature, approval by the country’s president, and subsequent approval by three-quarters of voters in at least three of the FSM’s four states.

Other countries with constitutions that are nearly as hard to change are Palau, Switzerland and Australia. Like the U.S. and the FSM, these countries all require ratification at both the national and state levels.

At the other extreme, many countries with unicameral (single-chamber) legislatures can amend their constitutions much like how they pass regular laws, just requiring a larger majority in favor.

Hardest and easiest national constitutions to amend
Difficulty score based on easiest pathway, as specified in constitution

Note: When a constitution specifies more than one amendment process, the “difficulty of amendment” scores represent the least difficult process. Data is based on the 106 countries we classify as democracies and includes some fully self-governing territories whose sovereign status is disputed.
Source: Pew Research Center analysis using scoring system based on “Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment” by Donald S. Lutz (American Political Science Review, June 1994).

American Pride Drops and Polarizes

Many posts have discussed patriotism and American exceptionalism.

Megan Brenan at Gallup:

As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, 33% of U.S. adults say they are “extremely proud” to be an American, the lowest reading in Gallup's trend dating back to 2001. Another 20% say they are “very proud,” which means just over half of Americans express high levels of pride in their country.

The remaining shares say they are “moderately proud” (22%), “only a little proud” (15%) or “not at all proud” (9%).
...
The current 56-point gap between Republicans’ and Democrats’ reported extreme pride is similar to last year’s 57-point difference, the highest on record. 

SCOTUS Upholds Birthright Citizenship

A number of posts have discussed birthright citizenship.

 Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. In a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. Barbara, the justices agreed with the challengers, as well as all of the lower courts around the country that have considered the issue, that Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling both “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” Alito argued, “shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead,” he contended, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

Trump issued the executive order at the center of the case on Jan. 20, 2025, shortly after he was sworn into office for a second term. It provided that babies who are born in the United States to parents who are in this country either illegally or temporarily are not automatically entitled to citizenship.