In the Press: Supreme Court Brief, Shutdown Workarounds, Social Security COLA, and Defense Donations
Dominik Lett’s Research Cited in Supreme Court Amicus Brief
Dominik Lett was cited in a recent amicus curiae brief filed before the Supreme Court of the United States in Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Trump. Lett’s analysis, first published on the Debt Dispatch, underscores that tariffs are no path to fiscal discipline. Lett argues:
“The Trump administration has argued, in ongoing litigation, that revoking certain tariff authority would have “catastrophic consequences” and “lead to financial ruin.” The administration’s concerns are overblown and misrepresent the actual fiscal situation. America’s debt problem is being driven by runaway entitlement spending and interest costs. Tariff authority does not change those fundamentals, and even under optimistic revenue scenarios, tariffs won’t avert a fiscal crisis.”
The amicus brief—filed by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation—supports the petitioners and respondents challenging the use of executive-imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Joseph D. Henchman, the counsel of record on the brief points out that “tariff revenues do not even cover interest on the national debt” and cites Lett’s prescription:
“The path to fiscal stability runs through entitlement reform and spending control, not sustained reliance on executive-imposed tariffs.”
Boccia comments in New York Post on the $130 million donation to pay troops:
But experts warned that the administration may not be able to legally disburse the money without congressional approval.
“The department is welcome to acknowledge this donor’s intent, but that does not change the legal restrictions on Congress needing to appropriate funds to pay military salaries,” Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital.
Boccia said existing law only permits the military to accept private gifts for limited purposes, such as funding schools, libraries, or facilities, or helping troops injured or killed in the line of duty.
Article I of the US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse — including the authority to allocate money for federal salaries.
“The only way to get around this restriction is if Congress decided to recategorize troop pay as mandatory or direct spending,” she said.
Axios quotes Boccia on shutdown funding workarounds:
Between the lines: “The administration unilaterally repurposing Congressionally appropriated funds is illegal, plain and simple,” says Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement Policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.”
The question is who will stop the administration? Checks and balances are not self-executing,” says Boccia, who has also worked at the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation.
The Washington Post quotes Boccia on the Social Security Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment (COLA):
But Romina Boccia, a Cato Institute expert on entitlement programs, said 2.8 percent is too high; she’d prefer to see the adjustment based on a different measure of inflation, the chained CPI. That takes into account the substitutions that consumers make — such as buying more chicken when beef gets too pricey — rather than simply calculating rising prices.
“These higher COLAs are increasing the Social Security fiscal gap at an excessively high rate,” she said. “Using the old, outdated index actually drives up Social Security costs more than is necessary to compensate beneficiaries for increases in the cost of living.”
The Real Problem with Social Security: Explainer from an Expert
In a recent video feature, Romina Boccia breaks down why Social Security is not, and never has been, a savings program.
“If a private company ran its retirement plan the way Social Security is run, its executives would likely go to jail,” Boccia explains. “Social Security is a pay-as-you-go transfer program—current workers fund the benefits of current retirees.”
Even during its so-called surplus years (1983–2010), nothing was actually saved. Today, the program runs a cash-flow deficit, with promises far exceeding what payroll taxes can deliver.
To illustrate how the system really works, Boccia revisits the story of Ida May Fuller, the first American to receive a Social Security check. Fuller paid just $25 in taxes before retiring in 1940. Her first monthly benefit was $22.54—nearly her entire lifetime contribution—and by the time she died, she had collected around $23,000, roughly 1,000 times what she paid in, or about half a million dollars in today’s terms.
Even Fuller recognized the flaw. When Congress debated another benefit expansion in 1970, she objected:
“It’s been raised as far as it ought to go. Every time they raise it, they raise the amount taken away from the working people who pay into it, and it’s just getting to be too much of a burden.”
That burden has only grown. According to the latest Social Security Trustees Report, closing the system’s funding gap would require raising the payroll tax to 16%, costing the median worker earning $67,000 about $110,000 more over their lifetime—the equivalent of working two full years for free.
As Boccia concludes:
“Social Security doesn’t need another patch. It needs a fundamental redesign—one that protects vulnerable seniors while allowing workers to build real savings and take control of their own retirement futures.”
Learn more in our new book Reimagining Social Security, available now. Or take a look at these recommended resources:
Social Security Is a Legal Ponzi Scheme
Young Workers Could Lose $110,000 in Lifetime Earnings to Keep Social Security Solvent
Social Security’s Financial Crisis: The Trust Fund Myth Uncovered