Graham Platner is now the Democrats’ official choice to be Maine’s next senator, scandals be damned. Notably, his first campaign advertisement since becoming the candidate does not even mention his opponent, Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine), but instead focuses on “powerful Democrats and Republicans” who possess “a love of Jeffrey Epstein and a hatred of me.”

Platner is running on opposing “the Epstein class.”

The only thing the DC establishment can agree on is a love of Jeffrey Epstein — and a hatred of me.

Together, we will take back our government from the Epstein class.

WATCH: Our new TV ad pic.twitter.com/H0Ekeqa4uC

— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) June 10, 2026

It’s time to start calling out this shameless, cynical line of attack (and defense) with greater fervor. The “Epstein class” is a phrase coined by Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D–Ga.) to refer to a nebulous, nonspecific group of societal elites who are supposedly complicit in the crimes of Epstein. Increasingly, this is directed at President Donald Trump, who knew and associated (and then disassociated) with Epstein 30 years ago, before his crimes were known—though many Democrats have been perfectly willing to throw the Clintons under the bus.

But the truth is that there is no Epstein class. There is no sinister cabal of wealthy, powerful pedophiles who abused underage girls provided by Epstein. The theory that these elite pedophiles skirted justice because of government incompetence—or because high-level government agents were involved—is false. The disclosure of the Epstein Files, of millions of pages of relevant documents, has not produced a shred of evidence to support such an idea. This should matter. Eventually, people making sensational claims should feel required to present proof, particularly when the course of action they advocated—the unprecedented public release of police notes and uncorroborated investigative files—is adopted. The theorists have none.

By invoking the “Epstein class” and asserting that it is this group of (imaginary) persons who are out to get Platner, the candidate is doing exactly what Hunter Biden did when he appeared on Candace Owens’ podcast: distracting from his own failings by insinuating that there’s some really corrupt, evil class of criminals who are out to get him. Concerned about the fact that Platner very obviously lied about not knowing his tattoo was a Nazi symbol? Ignore that: It’s what the Epstein class wants you to think!

---

Class Dismissed

For what it’s worth, the rise of this lazy and false smear—which is now predominantly wielded by partisan Democrats—is entirely the fault of top Trump administration officials. A fascinating article in The New York Times excerpted from a new book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan details exactly how this came to be. In their capacity as independent podcasters, people like Dan Bongino and Kash Patel helped popularize the idea that the FBI was protecting Epstein clients and that Trump would reveal all if reelected. (Trump himself never shared much enthusiasm for this issue.) Once they joined the administration, however, they were forced to confront a troubling truth: There was no such client list to unveil.

“As they took office in 2025, Trump’s advisers were subject to intense pressures of their own making,” note Haberman and Swan.

According to their reporting, Vice President J.D. Vance is keenly aware of how disappointed the MAGA base has been with the administration’s handling of the Epstein Files. For this, he has only himself to blame. It will prove impossible to satisfy the demand for something that simply does not exist.

---

This Week on Freed Up

Check out the latest episode of my new podcast with Christian Britschgi, in which we stop being polite…and start getting real.

---

Worth Watching

Oh man, they’re remaking Ocarina of Time for the Switch 2!

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time will be reborn on Nintendo Switch 2 in 2026. #NintendoDirect pic.twitter.com/t3qz5IVv5u

— Nintendo of America (@NintendoAmerica) June 9, 2026

I am excited. I am also concerned, because there are so many ways they could mess this up. It’s generally not a great idea to tinker with things that were basically perfect the first time around. (Thus my opposition to the latest Avatar: The Last Airbender live-action show; it’s fine, but why bother?) The opportunity to improve the graphics is nice, but the original game has so much charm and personality specifically because the pixelated sprites look weird and unsettling. I’m also terrified that they will make it open world, like Tears of the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild. Do not do this, Nintendo!

That said, the Super Mario RPG Remake was excellent, and I thought that game was perfect to begin with, too. Moreover, I wouldn’t mind if they mixed up the puzzles in the dungeons, made combat more dynamic, and increased the difficulty for veterans.

The post Graham Platner, Other Fools Blame Their Problems on the 'Epstein Class' appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/71drPOf
via IFTTT

An excerpt from yesterday’s Sixth Circuit decision (which I think is generally quite correct) in Boddy v. Grech, written by Judge Richard Allen Griffin, joined by Judges John Bush and John Nalbandian:

During a public comment period of a Xenia School Board meeting, plaintiff Darbi Boddy attempted to express her views regarding the school district’s alleged teaching of critical race theory. In prepared remarks, delivered in a calm and deliberate manner, Boddy took issue with the “cowardice” of the school district’s superintendent and characterized the Board as “failing.”

Displeased with the speech, Board president Mary Grech threatened to turn off Boddy’s microphone. Forty seconds later, as some in the audience became disruptive in reaction to Boddy’s remarks, defendant Grech abruptly seized Boddy’s microphone and recessed the meeting. Boddy was denied her allotted five minutes of public comment, and she was not offered any additional time to address the Board when the meeting resumed….

[Boddy] addressed the Board calmly and deliberately:

My name is Darbi Boddy and I live in West Chester. I am a previous Board of Education member for the Lakota School District; I am on the board of Protect Ohio Children and represent the southern part of Ohio and the organization responsible for the heat map. I am also a leader for Moms for America in Butler County. I recently heard about the failing Xenia Board of Education and the cowardice [sic] superintendent who cannot perform adequately in his role ….

After speaking for only twenty-eight seconds, president Grech interrupted Boddy, shouting “Excuse me!” Boddy, however, continued. Quickly, Grech again yelled, “Ma’am, excuse me I will cut your mic.” Undeterred, Boddy continued to methodically read from her prepared remarks:

This superintendent reprimanded the one good board member who was doing [his] due diligence and asking questions so he could better understand the teaching environment, make educated decisions to determine what is best for the students of Xenia and therefore help create an educational environment free of racism and division, as is his job per ORC and school policy. It appears quite obvious this board and superintendent do not advocate for transparency and want to continue pushing racist and divisive ideologies to the children of Xenia and indoctrinate them into an anti-American agenda ….

At this point, some in the crowd began to heckle Boddy with loud boos, which continued for approximately fifteen seconds.

About a minute and twenty seconds into Boddy’s remarks and amid loud boos, Grech moved to recess the meeting, which another Board member quickly seconded. Yet Boddy continued to speak. A few seconds later, Grech walked up to the podium and took the microphone away as Boddy was speaking. Some in the crowd cheered; others jeered and booed. Boddy continued speaking, without a mic, as the Board shuffled out of the room. Although Boddy was prevented from using her allotted five minutes of public comment, the Board did not offer Boddy any additional time to finish her remarks after the recess.

The court concluded that Boddy’s speech didn’t fall within any First Amendment exception:

Boddy’s use of “failing” and “cowardice” do not constitute fighting words. Nor was her speech obscene, as it did not appeal to a “shameful or morbid interest in sex.” She did not utter any “threatening, profane or obscene revilings” either….

And even if Boddy’s speech was offensive, the First Amendment protects this kind of speech. A contrary rule would permit “a majority to silence dissidents,” and allow the government to ban “the expression of unpopular views.” … “The government may not censor speech merely because it is offensive to some.” Even seemingly neutral rules that ban “attacks on people or institutions” “could be considered viewpoint discrimination.” And regardless of the forum, viewpoint discrimination is impermissible.

The court rejected the district court’s “characterize[ing] some of Boddy’s speech as an ad hominem attack not protected by the First Amendment”:

First, we have never held that an ad hominem attack is per se unprotected speech…. Nor has the Court held that ad hominem attacks are without First Amendment protection….

Second, as a factual matter, Boddy’s speech was not an ad hominem attack. Boddy was criticizing the Board and superintendent for their policy choices as public employees. An ad hominem attack is a “personal dig or affront … [or] the criticism of an adversary’s character as opposed to the substance of the adversary’s arguments.” Boddy’s speech was not personal or related to the character of any individual Board member. She did not address any member by name and merely characterized the Board as “failing.”

And even the use of “cowardice” to describe the superintendent’s actions was related to his performance in his public facing role. “Freedom to criticize public officials and expose their wrongdoing is at the core of First Amendment values.”

The court concluded that the restriction was viewpoint-based, and not based on application of neutral “decorum” rules:

Grech’s justification for cutting Boddy’s speech reveals that she curtailed Boddy’s speech because she shared viewpoints critical of the Board…. Grech testified that she made the threat to cut the microphone because Boddy “was starting down the path of calling [people] names.” But we condemned this precise rationale in Ison as impermissible viewpoint discrimination. Although Grech claimed later that she admonished Boddy because of how she was speaking, not because of what she was saying, the district court erred to the extent that it credited this portion of her testimony because the record shows otherwise.

First, consider the idea that Grech cut off Boddy because of her hostile tone. As the district court found—and the video evidence confirms—Boddy’s tone and demeanor were objectively professional and consistent with proper decorum. So this first rationale is no help to defendants. Second, that some of Boddy’s speech was directed at Lofton alone does not make it unprotected.

Third, the video shows that Boddy did not incite the crowd. To the contrary, Grech acknowledged that her threat to cut the microphone may have riled up the crowd. The video corroborates this understanding. And the district court similarly found that Grech, not Boddy, may have incited the crowd….

Grech’s other testimony regarding Amber Boddie’s reprimand is also problematic because it suggests that speech critical of the Board would violate the decorum rule, but speech praising the Board would not. The Board “may not exclude speech merely because it criticizes school officials.” …

And the court held that the government’s actions unconstitutionally “perpetuate[d] a heckler’s veto”:

“Of course, the First Amendment generally does not allow speech to be restricted because of some enthusiastic audience members’ reactions.” … Rooted in the idea that the government cannot favor one citizen’s speech over another, we have held that speech “does not lose its protection under the First Amendment due to the lawless reaction of those who hear it.” And “[p]unishing, removing, or by other means silencing a speaker due to crowd hostility will seldom, if ever, constitute the least restrictive means available to serve a legitimate government purpose.”

In Bible Believers, a group of anti-Muslim evangelists attended Dearborn’s Arab International Festival with the goal of converting patrons with their offensive and anti-Muslim messages. At the event, the group was surrounded by “youthful hecklers” who began throwing “bottles and other garbage at the Bible Believers.” The police officers’ focus was on the evangelists, and they asked that the group stop using their megaphone to amplify their controversial speech. We held that the police officers “effectuated a heckler’s veto by cutting off the Bible Believers’ protected speech in response to a hostile crowd’s reaction.”

Although Bible Believers concerns a heckler’s veto in the context of a public forum with police as the relevant government actors, several important throughlines surface regardless of the forum at issue. When a “peaceful speaker” engages in protected speech and “is confronted by a hostile crowd, the state may not silence the speaker as an expedient alternative to containing or snuffing out the lawless behavior of the rioting individuals.” Nor can the government “sit idly” by as the crowd imposes a “tyrannical majoritarian rule.” It should “take any appropriate action to maintain law and order that does not destroy the right to free speech by indefinitely silencing the speaker.”

We have yet to apply the heckler’s veto to a limited public forum, but its application flows logically from our First Amendment jurisprudence. After all, a heckler’s veto theory is another way to show impermissible viewpoint discrimination—which is improper regardless of the forum at issue. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, a “claimed fear of hostile audience reaction could be used as a mere pretext for suppressing expression because public officials oppose the speaker’s point of view.” Situations could arise “where the asserted fears of a hostile audience reaction are speculative and lack substance, or where speech on only one side of a contentious debate is suppressed.” Similarly, the Third Circuit has suggested that a heckler’s veto theory hinges on whether the government’s actions were based on the content of the speech.

Under this framework, the heckler’s veto test turns into a fact-bound test for viewpoint discrimination—here, whether Grech used the disorderly crowd as a pretext to stifle Boddy’s speech. The facts suggest that Grech sanctioned a heckler’s veto and in fact gave rise to it. Boddy shared an unpopular view, and some in the crowd tried to shout her down. Grech made no effort to quiet the crowd before moving for a recess. She also testified that she may have helped rile up the audience when she threatened to cut the mic.

As in Bible Believers, the government actor did not protect the speaker from the crowd but silenced the speaker in an effort to maintain decorum. And because of the forum, Grech had more control over the proceedings than an officer on the street. The Board’s policies empowered Grech to regulate the meetings for reasonable decorum, and she could have used her authority to quiet the crowd instead of Boddy. Instead, she threatened to cut Boddy’s microphone and then did just that. Further, Boddy was not offered the opportunity to finish her speech after the recess. So Boddy can show a likelihood of success on the merits under her heckler’s veto theory as well.

Curt Hartman represents plaintiff.

The post No Heckler's Veto Allowed at School Board Meetings appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/euqnBvT
via IFTTT

A federal jury in Iowa awarded $105,000 to a former college student late last week after officers wrongfully arrested him for driving under the influence without probable cause. The award comes nearly four years since the Fourth Amendment-violating traffic stop went viral. 

On a rainy night in August 2022, Tayvin Galanakis, a then-19-year-old member of the William Penn University football team, was stopped by officers in Newton, Iowa, for driving with his high beams on within city limits. Body camera footage of the stop shows Galanakis explain that he was using his high beams because one of his headlights was out and turning them off when other cars approached. 

It was the first time he had ever been pulled over, and Galanakis was slow to find his up-to-date registration and insurance information. Just a few minutes into the stop, Newton Police Officer Nathan Winters asked Galanakis to step out of the car and had him sit in the police cruiser. 

“How much have you had to drink tonight?” Winters asks. “None,” Galanakis responds. “What do you mean, ‘none’?” Winters shoots back. 

Winters proceeds to accuse Galanakis of being under the influence, citing “watery and bloodshot eyes,” “fumbling over the registration,” and an “odor of alcohol” he says is coming from Galanakis. After confidently asserting he’s had “nothing to drink” and that he “can’t wait” to take a test, Galanakis asks what happens if “nothing pops up.” “Do you get in trouble?” Galanakis asks. “No,” Winters responds, “I’m doing what I’m supposed to do.” 

Winters leads Galanakis through several field sobriety tests in the rain. Despite no obvious evidence of intoxication, Winters claims Galanakis is showing “signs of impairment” before moving on to a breathalyzer test. But Galanakis blows a blood alcohol level of 0.00. 

“When’s the last time you smoked weed?” Winters asks, to which Galanakis denies having smoked weed recently. “I blew a zero, so now you’re trying to say I smoked weed?” asks Galanakis. “You can’t do that, man. You really can’t do that.”

“Absolutely I can,” Winters responds. 

Galanakis was then arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated and taken to the Newton Police Station. Eventually, Galanakis was released after voluntary drug tests proved he was, in fact, completely sober. 

Shortly after his arrest, Galanakis posted the body cam footage online, where it’s gained almost 2 million views and sparked hundreds of calls to the Newton Police Department expressing outrage, according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch. And in February 2023, Galanakis filed a lawsuit against the arresting officers and the City of Newton for claiming, in part, they arrested him without probable cause and in a “gross disregard of Tayvin’s civil rights.” 

Winters and the second arresting officer struck back with a counterclaim, arguing Galanakis had defamed them when he published the footage and criticized them online. But in May 2023, most of the officers’ defamation claims were dismissed when a federal judge ruled that Galanakis’ statements were clearly “his opinion or ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ about what had happened during the encounter.” 

Galanakis’ claim, however, moved forward and even overcame qualified immunity after a federal judge found that “no officer could reasonably conclude that there was a substantial chance that Galanakis was under the influence of marijuana” and that he showed “almost no indicia of intoxication.” (Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields state actors from personal liability for violating constitutional rights that aren’t clearly established.) 

Now, nearly four years since the initial stop, an Iowa jury has ruled in favor of Galanakis, awarding him $105,000, including damages for both his civil rights and false arrest claims, and punitive damages against both arresting officers. 

Holding law enforcement officers accountable for violating constitutional rights is essential for not only preserving civil liberties, but for deterring government overreach and abuse of power. And while Galanakis was eventually successful in standing up for his constitutional rights, his case remains an outlier in a legal system that makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to hold bad cops accountable.

The post Iowa Man Seen in Viral Body Camera Footage Wins $105,000 Wrongful Arrest Lawsuit appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/aK0mQwj
via IFTTT

Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed a memorandum of understanding with Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) president Dana White on Thursday to “collaborate on the global growth of mixed martial arts.” The New York Post gave the ceremony exactly the kind of attention-grabbing headline that the Trump administration might have been looking for: “Rubio and UFC will sign deal to use cage fights for diplomacy.”

The details of the agreement were somewhat more boring. It enlists the UFC into the “sports diplomacy” programs run by the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The bureau spent around $52.5 million on “citizen exchanges,” which includes sports diplomacy and other non-academic cultural events, in FY 2025. Examples include the Global Sports Mentoring Program for women sponsored by espnW. 

In other words, rather than turning the United Nations into the Thunderdome, the new deal seems to be a way to give a leg up to a private sports league. President Donald Trump has been a longtime fan of UFC and a longtime friend of White. The martial arts news site Uncrowned noted that State Department backing “is worth real money” when it comes to booking international venues.

“We’re excited about what this brand means about America’s ability to expand and reach out to other parts of the world,” Rubio said at the signing ceremony. “It will be an American company and an American brand—even if it may be their fighters—bringing this sport to these places, and that’s the definition of American soft power.”

Ironically, the Trump administration has been trying to dismantle the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs since Trump’s second inauguration. Rubio initially froze the bureau’s budget by around 93 percent and proposed abolishing U.S. government-sponsored cultural and educational exchanges altogether. Although Congress restored the bureau’s budget, the administration is asking again to cut it by 68 percent, mostly by cutting educational programs, such as the Fulbright scholarship.

But Rubio seems to have found another use for the bureau: cozying up to private sports leagues. In January, the National Football League signed a memorandum of understanding with the State Department to sponsor international flag football tournaments, training camps, and exchanges. Thursday’s agreement brings UFC under the same fold.

UFC is hosting a $60 million match at the White House on Trump’s birthday. Lawyers in a lawsuit to halt the match called it a “volcano of corruption” and “the first private, for-profit sporting event ever held on White House grounds” in a filing on Wednesday. The White House called the lawsuit “an obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory” tactic.

“The White House is the people’s house. It belongs to the people of the United States,” Rubio said at Thursday’s signing ceremony. “For them to be able to see this event with their White House in the background as part of our celebration of 250 years is a gift to the American people.”

And a gift to Trump, whose favor advisers compete to curry. Earlier this year, the FBI also partnered with UFC to train its agents in self defense. Rubio himself has been pushing out Vice President J.D. Vance as Trump’s heir apparent. On April 12, while Vance was bringing back news of the failed U.S.-Iranian peace talks, Rubio was watching a UFC match in Miami with the Trump family. In other words, the real “sports diplomacy” here is Rubio’s outreach to Trump.

The post Marco Rubio's 'Cage Fights for Diplomacy' Are Another Form of Crony Capitalism appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/VJi0Flh
via IFTTT

President Donald Trump and his allies rightly condemn the Biden administration’s censorial meddling with social media, which sought to suppress constitutionally protected speech that federal officials viewed as dangerous. Trump, who issued an executive order aimed at “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship” on the first day of his second term, promised to end such bullying. Yet he has not been shy about using the influence of his office to restrict speech, as illustrated by his demands that ABC punish late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel for saying things he did not like.

Sens. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) have teamed up to offer a more consistent and principled response to the dangers of “jawboning,” a form of indirect censorship that operates via government pressure on third parties such as social media platforms and TV networks. On Thursday, Cruz and Wyden introduced the JAWBONE Act, which would allow Americans affected by such pressure to seek damages from officials who exert it.

“JAWBONE” stands for “Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression.” While that reach for an apt acronym is awkward and barely comprehensible, the bill itself makes considerably more sense.

“Holding the government accountable and giving Americans the tools to fight back is essential,” Cruz says. “The JAWBONE Act ensures the First Amendment is protected, not undermined.” Wyden adds that “nearly all of Americans’ speech—including TV news, online streams and social media—flows through private corporations that are highly susceptible to government pressure.” Since “regular Americans can’t count on those companies to stand up to government jawboning,” he says, “they need a way to level the playing field.”

A summary of the bill says it would create “a cause of action against any government agency or employee that jawbones companies involved in social media, AI, or broadcasting, regardless of whether the jawboning succeeds.” Plaintiffs could seek “money damages and reasonable attorney fees.” The bill also aims to increase transparency and accountability by requiring agencies to publicly disclose relevant communications with “social media companies, AI companies, and broadcasters.”

The JAWBONE Act has been endorsed by a bunch of civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Knight First Amendment Institute, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Institute for Free Speech, Public Knowledge, Americans for Tax Reform, the Internet Accountability Project, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The bill “would mark major progress toward addressing indirect and unconstitutional government censorship of Americans’ speech,” FIRE says.

Beginning with the 1963 case Bantam Books v. Sullivan, which involved implied government threats against distributors of “objectionable” books and magazines, the Supreme Court has held that such “informal censorship” violates the First Amendment. The Court reaffirmed that principle in the 2024 case National Rifle Association v. Vullo, which involved a state regulator’s attempts to discourage financial institutions from doing business with the gun rights group. But as illustrated by the outcome in Murthy v. Missouri, which the Court decided a month later, it can be difficult for victims of informal censorship to vindicate their First Amendment rights.

That case involved plaintiffs who claimed their online speech had been suppressed as a result of the Biden administration’s crusade against “misinformation” about COVID-19. But the majority, which questioned the asserted causal link, held that none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue, adding that they had not adequately alleged that they were apt to suffer future injuries in the absence of an injunction.

Under current law, FIRE notes, victims of jawboning face several obstacles. First, they may not know their speech was deleted or downgraded because of covert government pressure. FIRE offers an example: Suppose you criticize the IRS on Facebook, triggering a private demand from an IRS official who says, “Delete this user or we’re going to start launching tax audits of Facebook executives.” Although “your First Amendment rights were violated,” FIRE says, “you have no idea it even happened.” The JAWBONE Act aims to remedy that problem by requiring disclosure of such communications.

Second, FIRE says, “the government can get away with attempted jawboning when the third party does not act.” The JAWBONE Act addresses that issue by allowing lawsuits based on such attempts.

Third, establishing a link between government action and ostensibly private decisions can be challenging, especially when companies that succumb to jawboning are not inclined to cooperate with potential plaintiffs. The JAWBONE Act “makes it easier for plaintiffs to obtain discovery, requiring the government to share more information about their jawboning,” FIRE says. “This will help victims prove their case in court.”

Finally, when jawboning involves federal officials, the statute that authorizes lawsuits alleging violations of constitutional rights, 42 USC 1983, does not apply. The JAWBONE Act fills that gap by expressly allowing lawsuits against federal officials.

“The JAWBONE Act enforces Americans’ First Amendment rights by making clear that the federal government cannot pressure [third parties] to censor speech,” says Greg Y. Gonzalez, FIRE’s legislative counsel. “Multiple administrations of both parties have engaged in jawboning, reflecting a broad and enduring problem. When federal officials cross this line, the JAWBONE Act ensures they can finally be held accountable. It’s a bipartisan solution for a bipartisan problem.”

The post Two Senators Offer a Bipartisan Solution to Censorship by Proxy appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3T5JKxV
via IFTTT

Ernest Hemingway once wrote that there are two ways to go bankrupt: “gradually and then suddenly.”

For Social Security, the “gradually” phase is coming to an end. According to the latest report from the trustees who oversee Social Security, the program will hit insolvency in late 2032—and, at that point, benefits will be cut by about 22 percent. That moment of crisis is no longer some distant problem to be worried about in the future. Senators elected later this year will be serving their terms when the “suddenly” arrives. 

But there are two other ways in which to go bankrupt: by spending too much money, or by not taking in enough to cover those expenditures. 

Often, Social Security’s fiscal problems are thought of as being the latter. For years, Social Security has run deficits, and that literally means that the program is not collecting enough tax revenue to cover the benefits being paid. 

But that’s not actually the most accurate way to think about Social Security’s problems. To a significant degree, Social Security (like the rest of the federal government) has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. It is the program’s overly generous benefits that are actually driving Social Security into insolvency.

To illustrate that point, look at the Social Security Administration’s own data. A two-income middle-class couple who retired in 1990 would have earned about $44,000 in annual benefits (in inflation-adjusted 2026 dollars). That same couple retiring this year would expect to receive more than $60,000 in annual Social Security benefits.

If you’re more of a visual learner, here’s a chart showing how those benefits have increased. And, remember, this is adjusted for inflation.

There's a third factor: Rising benefits, even after adjusting for inflation. In 1990, a 2-earner middle-income couple received about $44,000 in annual benefits. In 2026, a middle-income couple gets $60,000. By 2050, $86,000. /2 pic.twitter.com/npN3YRQ924

— Andrew G. Biggs (@biggsag) June 9, 2026

Those surging benefits have put a serious strain on Social Security’s finances. As Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, pointed out in a post on Twitter this week, the average American who will retire in the 2030s is promised more than 30 percent more in benefits than what they contributed in taxes. “If retirees simply got back what they paid in, Social Security would be solvent,” he wrote.

That is a problem with deep roots. In December 1977, Congress voted to automatically increase future Social Security benefits by indexing those payments to national average wage growth. Previously, Social Security benefits could only increase when Congress voted to allow it.

When the change was made, Congress also considered a plan to index benefits to inflation. That would have made more sense. But wages have consistently grown faster than inflation in recent decades—which is a good thing for workers—and that dynamic has created a situation where Social Security is obligated to pay benefits far in excess of what payroll taxes can cover.

There is no reason for Social Security to pay out such generous benefits. The program’s stated goal is to keep senior citizens out of poverty. But, according to Biggs’ calculations, that average two-income household getting $60,000 in annual Social Security benefits is receiving more than twice the amount needed to keep them above the poverty line—and that’s before they dip into any private savings.

In short: Benefits to most Social Security recipients could be cut significantly without pushing anyone into poverty. And that’s what should happen. Social Security is a safety net program, not one meant to finance a lavish retirement lifestyle.

The question of whether Social Security has a spending or revenue problem is going to be extremely relevant in the very near future. Raising taxes (or borrowing more heavily) to close Social Security’s funding gap makes little sense when the benefits side of the ledger caused this crisis.

The post Social Security Is Going Bankrupt Because Its Benefits Are Too Generous appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/r5oiyXM
via IFTTT