Re: Opinion, “How to Fix Social Security, in Six Words” (July 22)

Kathryn Anne Edwards promises the best of both worlds in her plan to fix Social Security—higher taxes to satisfy liberals and government investment in the stock market to appeal to conservatives. Instead, her proposal would deliver the worst of both: it avoids the difficult but necessary task of slowing Social Security’s unsustainable spending growth while expanding the government’s role in both the economy and financial markets.

Eliminating the payroll tax cap would push top marginal labor income tax rates above 60 percent in many states. This would discourage work, investment in human capital, and innovation among America’s most highly skilled professionals. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 19 of the 20 highest-paying occupations are medical professionals, including surgeons, radiologists, psychiatrists, and cardiologists, whose services Americans increasingly struggle to access.

Read the rest of this post →

Federal regulations can cause significant changes for governance or sectors of the economy. Yet it is quite striking for a proposed rule to overhaul more than $1 trillion of annual spending.

On May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) put forward a proposed rule that would overhaul grantmaking across the federal government. The Federal Register received roughly 100,000 comments on the rule through the July 13 comment deadline, demonstrating substantial interest. The OMB will now review the comments before issuing a final rule, which would then be subject to congressional review for 60 in-session days under the Congressional Review Act.

Understanding the rule’s stated purpose and potential effects is important for anyone interested in public policy. More importantly, the rule emphasizes the amount of control that the federal government has accumulated. This centralization is unhealthy for governance and contrary to American ideals of freedom and autonomy.

Read the rest of this post →

Burritos are at the center of an affordability debate. Podcaster Matt Walsh took to X on Monday to emphasize that grocery prices should be “The number one priority of every elected leader.” Turning Point USA’s Andrew Kolvet added one college student’s take on affordability: “A burrito shouldn’t cost $20.”

Podcast producer Joel Berry disagreed in the now-viral post that kicked off the debate. “Last night, my wife made homemade burritos for our family of 8 and it cost less than $20 total for everyone. I’m beginning to think the affordability crisis is really an ‘I don’t know how to cook’ crisis.” AEI’s Marc Thiessen weighed in, too, dismissing the whining of college kids about the cost of their DoorDash.

Read the rest of this post →

The Senate Commerce Committee this week advanced several bills that would radically restrict free expression, innovation, and privacy online. Most policymakers sincerely believe these bills will keep kids safe online, but the bills are dangerous attacks on online speech. The committee took up measures on both online platforms and AI; this article focuses on the two bills aimed at social media, gaming, and communications platforms: the SCREEN Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). 

The SCREEN Act

The SCREEN Act won a 15–13 committee vote but was not reported out because too few senators were physically present to meet the quorum requirement, so we will likely see it again. It aims to keep minors from accessing pornography. But any platform hosting any potentially pornographic content must verify the age of all its users. The bill also targets virtual private network (VPN) users.

Read the rest of this post →

In most areas of life, if something isn’t working, we look for another option. But not in K–12 education. The current system assigns kids to public schools based on where they live, not what they need. When it’s not working, the default is to assume there’s a problem with the child instead of asking if the school is the best fit. Of course, sometimes kids just need to work through challenges. But often, a different environment is what’s needed.

The spread of school choice programs that allow state funds to be used beyond public schools is opening the door to other learning environments—and that’s expanding educational freedom. But many parents and teachers aren’t aware of the diverse array of alternatives available today. Each week, the Cato Friday Feature showcases these options, along with the policies and organizations that make them more accessible, raising awareness for policymakers and parents. Educational freedom can only change lives if the people most affected know about it!

Living in Arizona—a state at the forefront of school choice and education entrepreneurship—Jennie Jones learned about Prenda microschools soon after she began homeschooling her oldest child. She was intrigued. “I thought, wow, that would be so fun to bring a few kids to my house,” she recalls.

Read the rest of this post →

The redistribution of wealth has once again become a central demand of American progressivism. Figures such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren argue that extreme concentrations of wealth should not merely be taxed to finance government programs but actively reduced through policies such as annual wealth taxes. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani have advanced similar arguments in favor of shifting resources from the wealthy toward public services, income supports, and social programs. 

Behind these proposals lies a broader moral claim: the state is justified in redistributing concentrations of private wealth for public purposes.

Read the rest of this post →

The unitary executive theory of the Constitution is, more or less, that the president has absolute authority over the executive branch of the federal government. This understanding of presidential power was once quite controversial; in the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions, it has gained wider acceptance. In this post, I want to consider a problem of unitary executive theory that has received little attention. Namely, unitary executive theory may grant the president authority over federal departments, but exercising that power in individual criminal prosecutions constitutes poor public management that destroys, e.g., the Department of Justice’s institutional authority. 

Sometimes it is imprudent and unwise (and even dangerous) for the president to exercise his authority over federal departments. In contrast, the president who respects the moral norm that encourages him to keep his hands off the rest of the federal government is probably making a wise choice.

Read the rest of this post →