Where does the Government Obtain the Authority to Kill a Person Who is no Longer Poses an Immediate Threat

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi, Facebook, Oct. 1, 2026 - I oppose it on the Lockean delegation principle.

John Locke grounds legitimate government in the collective delegation of our natural right of self-defense. But that right permits the use of force to stop an unjust threat. It does not give an individual the authority to kill someone who has already been restrained and no longer poses an immediate threat. If government possesses only those coercive powers that individuals may legitimately delegate to it, then the death penalty appears to exceed that delegated authority.

Frédéric Bastiat reinforces this principle by describing government as the collective exercise of the individual right of lawful defense. Its legitimate function is therefore to protect each person’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property, rather than to exercise an independent power to initiate force against people who no longer pose a threat.

That is why I am less interested in opposing the death penalty on consequentialist grounds. My objection is more fundamental: I do not think the authority to execute can be derived from the limited authority individuals possess over one another in a free society.

The problem for those who want to apply this principle selectively is that it does not stop with the death penalty. Once you take seriously the proposition that government authority is limited to powers individuals can legitimately delegate, much of the interventionist state becomes difficult to justify. You cannot invoke the delegation principle when it produces a preferred conclusion and then set it aside when applying it would constrain taxation, regulation, redistribution, licensing, or other exercises of coercive government power.

That leaves you with a scattered collection of arguments about the death penalty, each attacking a different question: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, proportionality, morality, and so forth. Those arguments may be worth debating individually, but they largely avoid the more fundamental question of where the government obtains the authority to kill a person who is no longer an immediate threat.

Michael Dioguardi is a residential property manager and independent blogger writing under the title Seeker of Liberty. Drawing on years of dedicated study of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, landmark court decisions, and Austrian School economics, he analyzes contemporary challenges to individual liberty, institutional accountability, and economic stability. Michael resides in Nashville. 

#

The above essay is in response to an essay opposing the death penalty written by Mark Rogers. To see Mark Rogers essay and my comments on the death penalty, follow this link.

Top Stories

It is Time to End the Death Penalty

Mark Rogers

by Mark Rogers, Facebook, Oct. 1, 2026 -  How many more examples of unnecessary cruelty will Tennessee provide before the People demand an end to the stupid and wasteful use of the death penalty? Not only is the death penalty lousy public policy, but apparently, the Volunteer state can't even do it properly. 

It shouldn't be necessary to reiterate all the reasons the death penalty should be consigned to the ash heap of History but... as a public service...

1) The death penalty cannot be undone. The discovery of new evidence or the exposition of false evidence or the realization that police or prosecutors played fast and loose with the facts can't be redressed with an official "Ooopsie" and a large check. Mistakes are final. 

2) The death penalty prevents criminals from changing their lives and improving their worlds even from prison. I would think people who want law to reflect Christian Values would prefer a system that allows for criminals to come to Christ rather than die unchanged. 

3) The death penalty is applied unfairly. Poor and minority killers are far more likely to be sentenced to death than well-off white killers. The idea that the death penalty is Justice is a myth. 

4) The death penalty is not a measurable deterrent to future criminals. 

5) The ultimate argument for the death penalty is revenge. Revenge isn't Justice. Revenge isn't good public policy. Revenge at the price of an innocent life isn't the behavior of a Just or Good society. 

How many more innocent people need to die to satiate the lust of some people for 'revenge,' especially when they weren't harmed? How many more people who never had a chance in life must die for the same reason?

Mark Rogers has long been active in Republican Party politics and is an astute observer of political trends and events and Republican politics.  He is well known as a successful Republican campaign manager and political consultant. He has also served in government and the non-profit sector. He is currently exiled from the Republican Party. He lives in Nashville.

#

Comments by Rod Williams -I have changed my mind about the death penalty. I have been of the view that some crimes or so horrendous that the death penalty was justified, but I now think the death penalty should be abolished.  I find Mark Rogers's arguments above persuasive. 

In addition to the above arguments, I have changed my mind because it can take 30 years to carry out the sentence. Some people die on death row of natural causes, never executed. Sometimes the family of the victim dies before the sentence is carried out. If justice were swift, I would be less opposed. Rather than the family of the victim waiting thirty years for justice, and experiencing delay after delay, and the State and those opposing the carrying out of the sentence spending thirty years in court fighting over the carrying out of the sentence, would it not be better to just sentence the person to life in prison without the possibility of parole? I think it would.

Another reason I have become an opponent of the death penalty is because of the failure to successfully carry it out.  The State attempted to carry out the execution of Christa Pike on Wednesday night. She was given two doses of pentobarbital by injection, but her heart did not stop. The Knoxville Federal Public Defender’s Office immediately filed for a stay of execution; it was granted, and life-saving measures were administered to Pike.

This is the second botched execution in Tennessee this year. I cannot understand why it is so hard to kill someone. People die of accidental overdoses all the time. Since apparently there is a reason the process of ending a person's life is so difficult, I think it is cruel and inhuman to attempt the execution, fail, administer lifesaving treatments to save the life of the criminal, and then try again later. 

The Christa Pike story is horrendous. It was senseless murder carried out by young people ages 17 and 18. Pike killed another girl for trying to steal her boyfriend and then bragged about the killing and carried a piece of the girl's skull in her pocket as a souvenir. There is no excusing or justifying the murder or minimizing the evil that occurred. To read more about the case, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Charlie Hatcher Distances Himself from Trump, Scrubs Trump from His Campaign Materials

by Rod Williams, Sept. 29, 2026 - Across the nation, Republican candidates running for office in the midterm elections are trying to distance themselves from President Donald Trump. They are scrubbing references and images of Donald Trump from their websites, campaign materials, fundraising letters, and emails. Many are hoping Donald Trump does not come to their district to campaign for them.

Former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who is running for Congress in Tennessee's fifth Congressional district, has changed his campaign slogan to remove a reference to President Donald Trump.

His former campaign slogan read “Pro-Gun. Pro-Life. Pro-Trump,” and appeared at the bottom of his campaign website. But the logo featuring the slogan has been removed from the website and fundraising emails. The slogan has been changed to read, "Pro-Gun, Pro-Life, Pro-Tennessee." 

It appears his campaign is panicking as he faces an incredibly strong challenge from Columbia Mayor Chaz Molder. Hatcher is running in a district Trump would have won by 20+ points, and yet polling shows Molder is within striking distance. 

The shift in Hatcher’s campaign slogan comes as Republicans nationwide grapple with backlash over the increase in gas and diesel prices, higher grocery prices, and inflation. Also, it seems that Trump's outrageous, erratic, and silly behavior and focus on things like the fight over the Kennedy Center and renaming bodies of water are turning people off, when what they think he should be focusing on is the economy. 

 I suspect that five weeks before the election is a little late to pretend you are not a Trumpinista.

Top Stories

The Coming Republican Revolt Against Tariffs

by Rod Williams, Sept. 27, 2026 - For decades, Republican Party politics has held that America and the world are better off with a free-trade policy. While many Democrats pandered to their union base and ran on a protectionist platform, when in office, most Democrats, like Republicans, advanced free trade.

If one looks back at NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), it was proposed by Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. President George H.W. Bush negotiated it, and President Bill Clinton later slightly modified and amended it before signing it into law. It passed Congress with bipartisan support. 

Free trade has been the trajectory of the world since the days of Adam Smith, and it advanced until the Great Depression. Some would argue that the abandonment of free trade and the Smoot-Hawley tariffs was a major contributing cause of the Great Depression. 

After World War II, the liberalization of trade again advanced starting in 1947 when nations created the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to reduce tariffs and provide a legal framework for trade. Other agreements followed. Liberalizing trade was the bipartisan policy of the United States up until the time of President Trump and the start of the current trade wars.

All of this time, while trade liberalization policies advanced under both Democrats and Republicans, Republicans were stronger advocates for free trade than were Democrats. I have been dismayed by Republicans' abandonment of free trade. Along with support for tariff reductions and free trade, Republicans have abandoned many of the beliefs they once held dear. 

With the consequences of Trump's trade wars becoming more and more clear and Trump's popularity waning, will Republicans return to their decades-long support for free trade? Below are excerpts from an article recently appearing in The Wall Street Journal. It is by Phil Gramm and Donald Boudreaux. Phil Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University and the Mercatus Center. They argue that Republicans will come to their senses and return to advocating for free trade. While I am pessimistic about the future of our nation and the world, and wonder if the old order can be restored, this article provides reason for optimism. Below are excerpts:

... When Mr. Trump asserted executive authority to impose the highest tariffs in 90 years, Republican congressmen, though skeptical, remained silent. If tariffs hurt Republicans in the November elections as much as they have hurt the economy, the midterms could end up igniting a Reagan revival on trade, shifting the trajectory of the party and the country. Donald Trump’s tariffs are hurting Americans. Real economic growth is slowing, consumer prices rising, and real wages stagnating. Now the Republican Party is set to pay for it.

No American president was more passionate about trade liberalization than Ronald Reagan. He understood that free and open markets allow “more productive use of our nation’s resources, more rapid innovation, and a higher standard of living,” as he said in 1985. “The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations.”

Most Republicans in Congress favor free trade. ... The production disruptions and economic uncertainty that have come with Mr. Trump’s tariffs aren’t winning Americans over. ...  congressional Republicans, because of intimidation or party loyalty, failed to oppose Mr. Trump’s tariffs ... Americans have reaped enormous gains from the fall of protectionist barriers. Per capita gross domestic product has risen 367% in real purchasing power since 1947. 

.... The 2028 Republican primaries could be an opportunity for this Reagan trade revival to reassert control of the GOP. The right candidate could run on “affordability,” committing to overturn the Trump tariffs and differentiating himself from Trump protectionism and industrial policy. 

To read the full article, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Trump Loses. Banned News Outlets Return to White House After Judge Orders End to Ban

by Rod Williams, Sept 24, 2026 - I assume everyone who does not live under a rock by now knows that Trump's ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico has been overturned by a Federal Judge, and those news outlets are back to covering the President. The judge ruled that the ban probably violated the Constitution.  The judge who made the ruling was a Trump appointee. I haven't heard the latest on this, but I am sure Trump will refer to him as a "lunatic far-left judge."  Trump will probably also attack him for not being loyal. That is the way Trump thinks. He doesn't respect loyalty to the Constitution or any principle; he expects personal loyalty to Donald Trump.

In making this ruling, the judge did not rule on the underlying merits of their removal but ruled that they had not been given due process and the opportunity to contest the order that revoked their White House press credentials. Trump has 14 days to appeal the judge's ruling.

Who knows if Trump will appeal; he may do something else reckless and stupid to simply change the subject. He is good at that. Maybe he will rename another body of water, intensify a trade war, or invade another country and will forget all about this. He is good at doing another outrageous thing so we cannot stay focused on the current outrageous thing.

If Trump pursues his attempt to ban these three outlets, I contend the news outlets will win on First Amendment grounds. Not everyone who claims to be a reporter can be granted access to the White House, of course, but viewpoint discrimination will not pass Constitutional muster. And, Trump said exactly why he was doing it. He might have gotten away with this if he had come up with some lame excuse about seeking greater diversity in the press corps and modifying the process of who gets White House credentials or some other BS, but he was in-your-face saying he was removing them because they were "Fake News," and they never said nice things about him.

To all my Facebook "friends" who were adamant that Trump had an absolute right to do this, I just wanted to say I was right and you were wrong. I still contend that if this is pursued, the news outlets will win on First Amendment grounds. 

Top Stories

In Warrantless ICE Construction Site Raid an American Citizen was Arrested and Detained Three Times

To read more about this story follow this link.

by Rod Williams, Sept. 24, 2026- The man pictured here is Leo Garcia Venegas. He is an American citizen who was arrested in warrantless immigration raids on construction sites in southern Alabama.  There was no reasonable suspicion that he was an illegal immigrant other than that he looks Hispanic. He has been detained and handcuffed three times by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, even though he had a valid REAL ID on all three occasions.  

This is not the only case of this happening. One example is that a North Carolina man who was arrested last year by immigration officers despite having a valid REAL ID, then dumped on the side of the road once the officers confirmed he was a U.S. citizen.

It is unknown how often this occurs. I would assume most people just accept it and don't file a lawsuit to get justice.  Many may be ill-equipped to seek justice, lacking the will or the finances. One has to assume that somewhere an American citizen is sitting in some African or Central American prison and no one knows where he is. 

From the comments I see on Facebook and other sites and from hearing MAGA-types express their glee at the cruelty of Trump's immigration policy, I assume many Americans do not care if the occasional American is picked up and detained. Many of those who like this kind of cruelty claim to love America and have made an icon out to the Constitution, but if it is other people whose 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated, they are okay with it. 

If you are okay with this type of thing happening, you should do some soul-searching. You should definitely stop claiming to love the Constitution; you don't. I am sure there are some people who celebrate this type of illegal, stormtrooper-type behavior who do love America. They love in a blood-and-soil manner, but do not love the creedal nation that is America, and the America that was that shining city on a hill. 

Top Stories

How Much More Should Americans Pay Per Year to Boost Domestic Manufacturing and Jobs.

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi, Facebook, Sept, 24, 2026- There is absolutely no reason to pay more for “policies aimed at bringing manufacturing home.”

The goal should not be to make Americans pay more so that politicians can say they brought manufacturing home. The goal should be to make the United States such an attractive place to invest that businesses choose to manufacture here because it makes economic sense.

That means removing the barriers that make production expensive: excessive regulation and permitting delays, restrictive zoning, inadequate infrastructure, high energy costs, occupational licensing barriers, distortions in the tax code, expensive healthcare, and policies that discourage capital investment. It means allowing businesses to build, hire, invest, innovate and expand without having to obtain a subsidy or protection from government.

That is very different from tariffs, subsidies and industrial policy. Those policies attempt to make domestic production artificially attractive by making foreign goods more expensive or transferring costs to taxpayers. The result is that Americans pay more for the privilege of producing something here.

A better objective is simple: make America more productive. If producing a good in America is the most economically efficient choice, capital will come here without being bribed. And if producing something elsewhere is more efficient, Americans should be able to benefit from that lower-cost production while American capital and workers move toward the activities where they are most productive.

Manufacturing can grow substantially without trying to recreate the manufacturing economy of the 1950s. In fact, the more important measure is not how many people we employ in factories, but how much productive capacity we can create with the labor and capital available to us.

The question should therefore not be, “How much are Americans willing to pay to bring manufacturing home?”

It should be, “What can we remove that is preventing Americans from profitably producing more at home?”

That approach does not require Americans to pay more. It is intended to make them richer.

Michael Dioguardi is a residential property manager and independent blogger writing under the title Seeker of Liberty. Drawing on years of dedicated study of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, landmark court decisions, and Austrian School economics, he analyzes contemporary challenges to individual liberty, institutional accountability, and economic stability. Michael resides in Nashville. 

Top Stories

The Constitution won twice this week

by Rod Williams, Sept. 23, 2026 - If not for the Federal Courts, including the US Supreme Court, Donald Trump's authoritarian project would be much further along. The courts have frustrated Trump's trampling of the Constitution. While Congress has folded and will endorse and excuse any Trump excess, the Courts have held the line.

Some criticize the Courts for not doing more. When the Courts rule in a way someone doesn't like, they are often quick to denounce the Courts. They think the courts should be advancing policies which are popular, or with which they agree. I don't. The Courts are not a policy-making body, and they should not be. They are to call balls and strikes, not follow the polls or public opinion. I am much more concerned about process than policy. I do not want the Courts to be making policy. 

Traditionally, it has been liberals who believe the Courts should interpret the Constitution in light of current political values and should advance the cause of "social justice."  Liberals have believed in a "living Constitution." Conservatives, on the other hand, have traditionally been "originalists" or "textualists," and have believed the Constitution should be interpreted in light of what the founders intended. Now, however, many conservatives believe the Court should always vote with Trump. They seem to believe the Constitution should be interpreted to let Trump do whatever he wants.

We should be thankful for the Courts curtailing Trump's worst instincts and thankful to those who represented the plaintiffs in bringing suits. There are two organizations that I proudly support with my financial giving that are beating the Trump administration in the Courts.  One is FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), and the other is the Institute for Justice. 

I have been a supporter of these two organizations for years. I was supporting them before the era of Trump. Before Trump, they were usually fighting liberals and defending against constitutional violations perpetrated by liberal governments or universities and were considered conservative organizations. These two organizations now find themselves most often defending victims of Trump's constitutional violations. The organizations have not changed; the perpetrator of constitutional violations is now primarily the Trump administration. These organizations are consistently defending the Constitution, regardless of the political identity of the offender.

I know in the age of Trump many feel powerless in standing up to Trump. There are things one can do to make a difference, and one is to support the organizations that are battling Trump in the Courts. Please consider making a contribution to these two exemplary organizations.

Below is an email letter I received today from the Institute for Justice, detailing two recent victories for the Constitution and defeats for Donald Trump and those doing his bidding.

 Dear Mr. Williams,

As you know, we have a very busy fall here at IJ with our three upcoming Supreme Court arguments. But I am happy to report that we’ve already had a double win this week: two major victories defending the Fourth Amendment and holding government agents accountable when they violate our constitutional rights.

The first victory came in Alabama, where IJ defended Leonardo Garcia Venegas, an American citizen who was detained by federal immigration agents while working at construction sites—not once or even twice, but three times.

Twice last year, officers entered Leo’s private job sites without warrants, detained him, and refused to accept his REAL ID. Earlier this year, they followed him home and, despite his attempts to show his ID again, tackled, handcuffed, shackled, and locked him in the back of a car.

This week, a federal judge ordered immigration officers to stop conducting warrantless raids of construction sites, stop detaining people without individualized suspicion, and immediately release workers who present evidence of legality, including REAL IDs.

The second victory came from the 5th Circuit, where IJ client Mario Rosales challenged a traffic stop that never should have happened.

In 2022, Mario and his girlfriend, Gracie, were pulled over on a false pretext of not using a turn signal by officers fishing for evidence of crime. Officers detained Mario, questioned him, and frisked him without justification. The Constitution protects against this stop-first-justify-later form of policing.

Last year, Mario achieved a major victory when a federal district court ruled against the officers and the city of Alexandria, Louisiana, allowing Mario and Gracie’s lawsuit to proceed. But (of course), the officers appealed on the grounds of qualified immunity, arguing their search and detainment of Mario and Gracie was not clearly unconstitutional.

Yesterday, the 5th Circuit ruled that Mario can move forward with his claims and denied qualified immunity on the core Fourth Amendment violations at issue in his case.

These victories matter far beyond Leo and Mario. They reinforce that government officials can’t ignore constitutional limits simply because they find them inconvenient.

It’s been a very good week for liberty so far! Many thanks for your support 

Scott

Top Stories

Independent Gubernatorial Candidate David Hatley Pledges to Donate $1 Million to Charity if Marsha Blackburn Agrees to Debate

 

Top Stories

The President’s Ban on Journalists Is Disgraceful and Illegal

by Dan Greenberg, CATO Institute, Sept. 22, 2026 - President Trump’s White House has repeatedly attempted to deny journalists access to presidential press conferences. This time, the White House has excluded several journalists because their coverage was allegedly “one-sided” and “negative.” Such efforts by the White House are illegal; they have failed in the past, and they will fail in the future.

The reasons the Trump White House has given in the past for its attempts to pick and choose which journalists are allowed to cover it have varied, but all of them have one thing in common: they cannot be reconciled with the law. Jim Acosta’s press pass was revoked because he continued to ask questions and refused to yield his microphone to another journalist. Brian Karem’s press pass was revoked essentially because he made remarks that were understood as rude and confrontational. The Associated Press was excluded because it used the label “Gulf of Mexico,” rather than “Gulf of America.” 

But these justifications for exclusion—like the more recent White House complaints about negative news coverage—fail, because they are empty and unworkable under the law.

To be sure, the president may choose to selectively exclude journalists from relatively small or secluded spaces, even if they are spaces where presidential communication occurs—for example, the Oval Office, Air Force One, or Mar-a-Lago. But there is no lawful basis to keep politically disfavored journalists out of places like the Brady Briefing Room, where major press conferences are held, and the journalists who are suing for access there – CNN, MS NOW, and Politico – will shortly prevail. These journalists are just as entitled as anyone else with a White House press pass to attend press conferences​at such locations.

The right of journalists to attend press conferences in White House briefing rooms is something like the right of the public to use an unmarked dirt path on private property: after those with control of the property have historically allowed the public access to it, then such public access can become legally protected. Of course, the analogy is not perfect; more technically, once the White House opens up some particular room to journalists generally, that room becomes a non-public forum—and the exclusion of journalists from such fora on the basis of viewpoint is impermissible. (Getting a press pass to the White House involves clearing other hurdles—a background check, a residency requirement, congressional media approval, and so forth; the holder of a White House press pass thus acquires certain privileges that cannot be arbitrarily stripped away.) 

But to repeat: The standards that govern the universal access that such a non-public forum must provide are quite different from those that govern (say) a president’s practice of beckoning a few reporters into the Oval Office or calling up a favored journalist on the phone. In these latter categories, the White House has every right to pick and choose who the president talks to, and presidential picking and choosing that takes journalists’ particular viewpoints into account is entirely protected.

Again, though, the president cannot pick and choose which journalists are allowed access to a non-public forum based on a journalist’s viewpoint. Regrettably, when Donald Trump was asked why he was denying access to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, his remarks demonstrated that viewpoint discrimination animated his choices:

Because they’re fake news. Uh, you get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. Uh, when you look at CNN, it’s just fake. That’s why their ratings are no good. When you look at MS NOW, which used to be MSNBC, which some people call MS DNC, Democratic National Committee, it’s fake news. It’s fake news … And when you look at Politico, I mean, they got a government—the government under Biden gave them like $8 million to keep them afloat. Uh, and the stories they wrote are fake „, You know how fake their reporting is. It’s one-sided. It’s never good. I’ve done many, many—look at this story today about, uh, favored nations on drugs. We lowered the drug costs by 50, 60, 70 percent. They won’t even put it—if they put it on, it’ll be—they will find a reason why that’s a negative … They’re smart people, but they purposely write negative news. And they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.

The president’s subsequent explanation of his powers and the media’s rights is particularly revealing:

I mean, there’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories. Now, if they want to write them, that’s fine, but I don’t have to let them into my—into the people’s house.

Public officials are sometimes under the mistaken impression that the powers and perquisites they acquire in government function like their own private property—that, for instance, Donald Trump can control every inch of the White House in the same way he can control every inch of Mar-a-Lago. Eventually, these public officials discover that they are mistaken and that they cannot use public property in the same way they use their own private property. 

It is a pity that Donald Trump has evidently not yet learned this important lesson, and it is unfortunately an open question what he will learn when he loses the lawsuit that CNN and others filed yesterday. 

Top Stories

Congress Did Not “steal” From Social Security

 by Rod Williams, Sept. 20, 2026 -  It is so frustrating to see the same memes or read comments about Security that are simply false. They pop up in my Facebook feed again and again. In talking to people, I hear them repeat lies about what is wrong with Social Security.

People will say that if we would cut out the waste, fraud, and abuse, the problem with Social Securityy would be solved. No doubt there is someone somewhere who is getting Social Security who is not entitled to it. But cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse would not solve Social Security's problem. The waste, fraud, and abuse is insignificant. I am for catching as many cheaters as we can find, but that is not what is wrong with Social Security.

Sometimes people get more specific and say what is wrong with Social Security is all of the illegal immigrants getting Social Security. Illegal immigrants in the United States are ineligible to receive Social Security retirement, disability, or survivor benefits. There are a handful of non-citizens, such as green card holders, who do qualify for Social Security, but they are also paying into the system. Their participation in Social Security is no more of a drain on the system than anyone else. Illegal immigrants who are working and using a fake Social Security card actually help the system. They pay in and never receive Social Security benefits.

One of the biggest lies about Social Security is that the reason it is going broke is that the government borrowed from Social Security and left the trust fund with worthless IOU's, or simple claims that Congress stole from Social Security. Absolutely untrue.

When Social Security collects more in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits, the excess is invested in Treasury bonds issued specifically for the trust fund. The cash from these bond purchases flows into the Treasury’s general fund, which can be used for any federal purpose. 

What do people think happens to money that is in the Trust Fund? Do they think it just sits untouched in a vault or is under someone's mattress?  We should be glad that it is drawing a little bit of interest. That is the way the system works.  In fact, it is a legal requirement, and it’s the same thing that happens when any investor buys U.S. government bonds.  When the trust fund redeems its bonds, the Treasury pays the principal and interest from general revenues. Because these bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, the bonds are legally obligated to be honored. People take what is rational and legally required and somehow turn it into the claim that the government stole from Social Security.  Congress does not “steal” from Social Security. Surplus revenues are legally invested in Treasury bonds earning interest.

What is wrong with Social Security is demographics. People are living longer, and because people are having fewer children, there are fewer people paying into the system. Social Security is a transfer program. When you pay Social Security taxes, that money does not go into an account with your name on it. When you pay your Social Security taxes, it goes right out the door to pay someone else's current benefit. It has always been that way. Any excess of what is received over what is paid out goes into the Trust Fund, but most of the benefits one receives is money that someone else is paying in.

Social Security is in trouble, with the trust fund projected to be depleted by late 2032. When it is depleted, benefits will be cut by about 22%. I suspect Congress will not allow that to happen and will pay the Social Security deficit out of the General Fund, which means borrowing with Treasury bonds sold on the open market or by borrowing from the Federal Reserve. Issuing more debt will hasten the day of reckoning for running up massive debt. Borrowing from the Federal Reserve is "printing money," is inflationary, and reduces the purchasing power of the dollar.

Some things could be done to put Social Security on a sounder footing. I have explored these elsewhere in posts on this blog. All solutions have consequences and a downside. Solutions should be explored and debated. Unfortunately, any talk of reform is met with images of pushing grandma in a wheelchair over a cliff. 

What does not help address the future of Social Security is repeatedly telling people that the reason there is a problem is that Congress stole the money. 

.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories