Advancing Big Ideas: Guest Posts at the Debt Dispatch
Join the debate on the future of fiscal policy
One of the things we value most at the Debt Dispatch is thoughtful debate on important fiscal issues. To deepen our exploration of big ideas, we’ve started featuring guest posts on provocative topics—especially where researchers disagree. Our goal is to surface different perspectives, invite critical thinking, and push the conversation forward.
We’re primarily interested in liberty-oriented ideas on fiscal and entitlement policy that prioritize limited government, individual responsibility, and market-based solutions.
We hope these perspectives challenge assumptions, raise new questions, and make space for productive disagreement. If there’s a topic you’d like to see tackled from multiple sides—or if you have a view to contribute—let us know.
Here are our submission guidelines:
Send your draft or a brief pitch (1-2 paragraphs) outlining your argument, why it matters, and how it engages with a current conversation.
Include your preferred short author byline.
Pieces typically run 600–1,200 words and should be written for a broad, informed audience.
Email your draft or pitch to debtdispatch@substack.com
We can’t publish everything, but we promise to read every pitch and submission and aim to respond within three days. If we accept your proposal, we’ll work with you to copyedit prior to publication.
Below is a brief summary of guest posts we’ve already published.
Should States Be Allowed to Opt Out of Social Security?
The question of whether states should be able to opt out of Social Security has sparked a three-blog series (so far) on our platform.
Thomas R. Savidge, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), opened the conversation by arguing the opt-out idea is worth discussing, but emphasized the need for strong guardrails. He noted that some state public employees are already exempt from Social Security, as long as their state pension meets “Safe Harbor” standards (i.e., benefits at least as generous as Social Security). However, Savidge found no strong correlation between the share of state employees exempt from Social Security and the fiscal health of their pensions, arguing that opting out isn’t a guarantee of sound fiscal management. He states that any opt-out framework should be paired with guardrails such as a ban on federal bailouts, strict prefunding rules if states choose defined benefit pensions, and ideally a shift to defined contribution plans.
AIER’s Jason Sorens, the author of the opt-out proposal, responded to Savidge, arguing that even underfunded state pension systems have a better financial outlook than Social Security, with none of them facing insolvency within the next decade, unlike the federal pension program does. He challenges Savidge’s correlation analysis, suggesting that the Safe Harbor criteria could be encouraging excessive benefits and underfunding. However, Sorens recognizes the need for some solvency-focused guardrails in these state alternatives (he also mentions a lump sum fee that states could pay to ensure Social Security isn’t harmed by their opt-out). Sorens concludes by pointing out a political incentive for Congress to support his proposal: “Devolving Social Security to the states is a way for Congress to set the conditions for fixing the problems with the program without having to make the hard decisions itself.”
Philip G. Joyce, a professor of public policy in the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, advises against Sorens’ proposal. He argues that states with a poor track record of managing their pensions would likely mishandle Social Security replacement programs. This could create a system in which individuals’ retirement benefits vary depending on the fiscal prudence of the state they live in. Joyce raises a question: “[D]o we really want a system in which an elderly person in Tennessee receives a greater Social Security payment than the identical person would receive if they lived just over the border in Kentucky, simply based on Tennessee’s more responsible fiscal practices?” He concludes that such a system would undermine the concept of a national social insurance program.
Exposing The Senate’s Budget Gimmicks
In our first guest post, Steve Robinson, a former senior policy advisor at the Social Security Administration and a former policy advisor and budget analyst at the US Congress, criticized Senate Republicans for using a ‘current policy baseline’ in the reconciliation process, a maneuver to ignore the cost of extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts. He warned that this budget gimmick would set a dangerous precedent: “If Republicans succeed in changing the baseline this year, Democrats will surely follow suit the next time they are in the majority.”
Join the Conversation
We’re excited to start this new chapter at the Debt Dispatch, inviting experts to introduce and debate big ideas on our platform, especially as the United States is hurtling toward a debt crisis. We hope this first round of guest contributions sparks more constructive dialogue in the months ahead. If you also wish to write on fiscal and entitlement issues on our Substack, we’d love to hear from you.