A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI
(A revised article I wrote in 2007)

This isn’t another budget debate or partisan volley. It’s about speed — the speed at which the United States is piling on debt and the narrowing time we have to manage it.

I’ve pulled together data from Treasury’s Debt to the Penny database, the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the Federal Reserve’s cash-balance series, and the government’s own Financial Report. What they show is sobering — and I’m grateful to everyone who keeps these numbers public so we can study them together.

1. The Warning Is in the Speed, Not the Size

When we talk about a $38 trillion national debt, it’s hard for anyone to feel the difference between $36 trillion and $38 trillion. But here’s what matters: the U.S. added that last trillion in just 71 days.

Below is the table Treasury’s own data produces — the number of days it took to move from one trillion-dollar threshold to the next.

It used to take years to add a trillion. Now it takes weeks. That’s the real warning light on the dashboard.

2. Shorter Maturities, Smaller Margin

Back in 1993 the average maturity of Treasury debt was roughly 12½ years.
Today it’s about 6 years, and roughly 22 percent of all marketable debt matures within one year.

Shorter maturities look smart when short-term rates are low, but they force the Treasury back to the market more often — like refinancing your mortgage every few months instead of every decade. If investors ever hesitate, even briefly, there’s an avalanche of maturing debt right behind it.

3. Why It Behaves Like a Ponzi — Even Though It Isn’t One

This isn’t fraud; it’s math.

Every month, new Treasury borrowing pays off old Treasury borrowing and covers the interest on what’s left. As long as new buyers keep showing up, the machine runs smoothly.

That’s also what keeps a Ponzi scheme alive — until confidence fades or inflows slow. The difference is that the U.S. government can tax, print, and regulate. But even governments can’t repeal arithmetic: if debt grows faster than income and the refinancing window gets shorter, confidence becomes the currency.

4. The “Trust-Fund” Holders — Borrowed from Ourselves

A surprising amount of the debt isn’t owed to the public at all — it’s owed to ourselves. About $7½ trillion of today’s $38 trillion total is intragovernmental debt: money that one part of the government has lent to another.

The biggest lenders:

Each fund holds special-issue Treasury securities — assets on its books, liabilities on the Treasury’s. They don’t have cash in vaults; they have receivables from the Treasury. When benefits are due, the Treasury must come up with cash — through taxes or by borrowing again from the public.

5. True Operating Cash — The Real Checkbook

So how much money does the federal government actually have to operate on?

Treasury’s Operating Cash Balance (OCB) — its checkbook at the Federal Reserve — tells us:

The FY 2024 Financial Report listed $871 B in operating cash, while the Fed’s own TGA series showed about $940 B in early November 2025.

That sounds large — until you remember it sits beside $38 trillion in total debt.
It’s not solvency; it’s a buffer measured in weeks.

6. What the Speed Means

Here’s how the pattern looks through time:

The system now borrows faster and must refinance sooner — two lines on the same graph, both curving downward toward zero.

7. Why the Trust Funds Don’t Save Us

Social Security, Medicare, and federal pensions hold trillions, but they hold them as special Treasuries. When those are redeemed to pay retirees, the Treasury must find cash. That means the same public borrowing that funded the rest of government. In short, we have IOUs to ourselves — promises backed by the same overworked credit card.

8. Cash Flow, Confidence, and Collapse Risk

Operating cash around $800 B seems comfortable until you realize that roughly $8 trillion of marketable debt will mature within a year. That means Treasury is always just a few bad auctions away from a scramble — not because of insolvency, but because of timing. In financial systems, timing failures can look like insolvency long before real default occurs.

9. Shared Credit Where It’s Due

Much of this analysis builds on open Treasury and Federal Reserve data —
the Debt to the Penny dataset, the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the Financial Report of the United States Government, and the FRED time series for the Treasury General Account. Every citizen can look at the same numbers and come to their own conclusions. My goal here — and I hope yours too — is to keep those facts visible before they blur together.

10. The Takeaway

Debt itself is not immoral. It built our highways, won our wars, and carried us through a pandemic. But when the speed of borrowing outruns the time to repay, we trade stability for convenience.

In 1993, the U.S. had an average debt maturity of twelve years and a trillion-dollar increase every few years. Today, maturities average six years and a trillion arrives every couple of months.

That’s not a cliff yet — but it’s a downhill grade with failing brakes.

The danger isn’t only the size of the debt. It’s the speed at which it is accumulating.

Data sources: U.S. Department of the Treasury – Debt to the Penny, Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (Table FD-3, June 2025), Daily Treasury Statement, Financial Report of the U.S. Government (FY 2024), and Federal Reserve FRED series WTREGEN (Treasury General Account).

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

“Killing the Filibuster to Save the Government: Why Rule XXII Must Be Reformed for Funding Bills”

Executive Summary

The United States Senate’s filibuster — a procedural relic born of accident, not design — now stands between the nation and its most basic obligation: keeping its government open. Rule XXII’s 60-vote requirement to end debate allows a minority of forty-one senators to block or delay essential appropriations. The result is a cycle of shutdown threats, economic costs, and public cynicism.

This paper reviews the filibuster’s history, constitutional context, operational failures, and reform options. It concludes with a practical amendment — the Funding Continuity and Accountability Amendment — establishing majority cloture for appropriations and continuing-resolution bills. The choice is not partisan. It is existential.

I. Origins and Evolution of the Filibuster

The filibuster was never part of the Framers’ plan. In 1806, the Senate unintentionally deleted the “previous question” motion that allowed a simple majority to end debate, creating a vacuum that enabled unlimited discussion. For decades this quirk lay dormant; the Senate was small, collegial, and rarely obstructed itself.

By 1917, amid World War I, obstruction had become intolerable. At President Woodrow Wilson’s urging, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, permitting debate to be cut off by a two-thirds vote. In 1975, amid rising partisanship, that threshold was lowered to three-fifths — 60 votes. Simultaneously, the “two-track system” allowed the Senate to shelve bills threatened by filibuster rather than endure endless floor speeches. That procedural convenience made the filibuster effortless, silent, and ubiquitous.

II. The Modern Filibuster: From Debate to Deadlock

Today, the Senate rarely conducts actual filibusters. A mere indication of opposition is enough to trigger the 60-vote barrier. This dynamic has transformed the Senate from a deliberative chamber into a veto point for any minority cohesive enough to withhold cooperation.

The consequences are concrete: appropriations stall; continuing resolutions lapse; federal employees go unpaid; markets shudder. In effect, the Senate’s internal rule now governs whether the federal government functions at all. No constitutional clause envisions that outcome.

III. Shutdowns as the Filibuster’s Logical Endgame

Government shutdowns occur when Congress fails to enact spending authority. Because every funding bill must clear cloture, the filibuster hands a minority leverage to extract concessions unrelated to the budget itself — or to block funding entirely for political gain.

The 1995–96, 2013, 2018–19, and 2025 shutdown crises all trace back to Senate impasses in which cloture votes failed or were never attempted. The spectacle of a global superpower furloughing its workforce over parliamentary procedure has become both farcical and damaging. As one senior analyst recently observed, “The world’s reserve-currency government should not be shut down by forty-one senators representing barely one-third of the population.”

IV. Constitutional and Democratic Context

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants each chamber the authority to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Nothing requires supermajority thresholds for ordinary legislation; the Framers reserved supermajorities for exceptional acts — treaties, impeachments, amendments — not for paying the military or keeping national parks open.

The filibuster therefore lacks constitutional pedigree. It is a self-inflicted constraint masquerading as a safeguard. Madison warned in Federalist 58 that such rules “transfer the power to the minority and make the government impotent.” Two centuries later, his warning reads as prophecy.

V. Attempts at Reform

Reform efforts have oscillated between abolition and cosmetic adjustment:

• The Talking Filibuster Proposal — restores the requirement that senators physically hold the floor; symbolic but easily circumvented.
• Graduated Thresholds — lowers the required votes over successive days; complex and still delays action.
• Carve-outs — already exist for judicial and executive nominations, enacted through the “nuclear option” in 2013 and 2017.
• Automatic Continuing Resolution Mechanisms — provide short-term protection but entrench gridlock by rewarding inaction.

Each reform chips at symptoms. None neutralizes the core flaw: a minority can still prevent timely funding.

VI. The Case for a Funding-Only Carve-Out

A narrow exemption for appropriations and continuing resolutions would:

1. Preserve deliberation while guaranteeing functionality. Ten hours of debate allows discussion without endless delay.
2. Avoid precedent creep. Limiting the carve-out to funding prevents claims of wholesale rule destruction.
3. Reinforce accountability. Majorities that fail to govern can be judged at the ballot box — a constitutional, democratic remedy.
4. End the shutdown weapon. Minorities could still oppose budgets on policy grounds, but they could not freeze payrolls for millions as leverage.

VII. Implementation Path

The Senate can adopt the amendment through one of two methods:

• Formal Rule Change: A two-thirds vote under Rule V to amend Rule XXII.
• Precedent (“Nuclear”) Route: The presiding officer, sustained by a simple majority, rules that cloture on funding bills requires only a majority. This creates binding precedent without formal text revision — the same mechanism used for nominations.

Either route is lawful under Article I, Section 5 and Senate precedent.

VIII. Anticipated Criticisms and Responses

Criticism 1: It destroys minority rights.
Response: Minority debate remains protected; only the power to veto funding ends. The House operates under simple majority rule and still functions.

Criticism 2: It invites partisan spending sprees.
Response: Fiscal restraint arises from politics, not procedure. A majority still answers to voters and debt markets.

Criticism 3: Future majorities could expand carve-outs.
Response: That risk exists but is outweighed by the certainty of recurring shutdowns under the status quo. Procedural rigidity is not virtue when it breeds dysfunction.

IX. Broader Democratic Benefits

Ending the funding filibuster would:

• Restore credibility to Congress as a governing body.
• Reduce market anxiety and credit-rating downgrades tied to shutdown threats.
• Protect federal employees, contractors, and local economies dependent on government spending.
• Reinforce the principle that elections — not procedure — determine governance.

X. Conclusion: The Rule That Ate the Republic

The filibuster was a parliamentary oversight that evolved into an instrument of paralysis. It has repeatedly thwarted civil-rights progress, delayed disaster relief, and now threatens the government’s ability to remain open. Preserving it for its own sake mistakes inertia for wisdom.

A living democracy cannot allow forty-one senators to silence fifty-nine. The Funding Continuity and Accountability Amendment, as I suggest, offers a targeted, constitutional fix. It kills the filibuster only where its mischief is lethal — the nation’s purse. If ever there were a moment to end this feature, it is now. What began as a quirk has become a crisis. Ending it is not radical; it is responsible governance.

Appendix A — Summary of Key Shutdowns and Filibuster Effects

🏛 Proposed Amendment to Senate Rule XXII

(Draft Legislative Text — “Funding Continuity and Accountability Amendment”)

Resolved, That Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by inserting after paragraph 2 the following new paragraph:

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, a motion to bring debate to a close on any measure, motion, or other matter the effect of which is to provide for appropriations, continuing appropriations, or the temporary funding of any department or agency of the United States shall be decided by a majority of Senators duly chosen and sworn.

Upon adoption of such a motion by a majority of Senators duly chosen and sworn, debate shall be limited to a total of ten hours, equally divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees, after which the Senate shall proceed to vote on final passage.

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the right of any Senator to offer germane amendments during the period of debate so limited, or to affect the application of this rule to any measure not described herein.

(4) The Presiding Officer shall certify any measure falling under paragraph (3) as a “funding measure” upon consultation with the Parliamentarian.

Effect:

• Replaces the 60-vote cloture threshold with a simple majority for any bill that funds the government.
• Caps post-cloture debate at 10 hours to prevent delay.
• Preserves deliberation and amendments, avoiding claims that debate is being silenced wholesale.
• Leaves the 60-vote threshold intact for all other legislation.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Then vs. Now — Why DST Was Instituted

The concept of shifting clocks forward in spring and back in fall — the familiar “spring forward, fall back” of Daylight Saving Time (DST) — was originally introduced in the United States for practical wartime and energy-conservation reasons. In World War I, the U.S. passed the Standard Time Act of 1918, and later during World War II the country observed “War Time.” The intention was straightforward: reduce fuel and lighting usage by making better use of daylight hours. Later, the Uniform Time Act of 1966 sought to standardize the practice nationwide so that clock changes would occur on uniform dates in most states.

In that earlier era, lighting and fuel represented major portions of energy cost, work and commuting patterns were more uniform, and societal rhythms aligned more closely with sunrise and sunset. The logic made sense: by shifting the clock, people would make more use of the evening hours of daylight, thereby reducing artificial lighting and saving resources.

Fast-forward to today and many of those baseline conditions have changed dramatically. The energy profile of the country is very different: lighting is more efficient, air conditioning and electronics dominate electricity use, people commute at different hours, work is more global/24 hour-enabled, schooling has shifted, and digital media means social and economic activity occurs well after sunset. Thus, the original rationale for DST — large energy savings — appears weaker in the current context. Research suggests that the energy reduction is modest at best, and in some cases could be negligible or even reversed.

At the same time, the health, safety, and circadian (biological clock) implications of time shifts have become much more salient.

Understanding the Circadian Rhythm

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to explain what the “circadian rhythm” is, because it is central to understanding the modern debate. The term originates from the Latin circa diem meaning “about a day”, and refers to the approximately 24-hour cycle by which many biological processes in humans (and other organisms) are regulated. According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM), our circadian rhythm is “our internal clock, and it is very tightly linked to the 24-hour day.” Sleep Education+2Sleep Foundation+2

More precisely, the circadian system synchronises internal physiological processes — including sleep-wake cycles, hormone release, body temperature, appetite, and metabolic regulation — to external environmental cues, most importantly the light-dark cycle of sunrise and sunset. Frontiers+1 When external time cues are altered (for example by travelling across time zones, shift work, or changing the clock), the internal circadian rhythm can become misaligned with the external environment — a condition sometimes termed “social jetlag.” Wikipedia+1

Why does this matter? Because when the human body is out of sync (i.e., our internal clock does not match the external light/dark schedule), there is growing evidence of negative downstream effects: increased risk of cardiovascular events, metabolic disorders, sleep disruption, mood disorders and impaired cognitive function. For example, in a review the AASM said that DST “can cause misalignment between the biological clock and environmental clock, resulting in significant health and public safety-related consequences.” JCSM

Thus, any policy that systematically shifts the external clock (such as DST) has the potential to interfere with the circadian rhythm — and that is why the modern health debate around DST looks very different from the original energy-saving rationale.

What’s Changed: The Health and Safety Lens

In recent years, a strong shift has occurred: from focusing primarily on energy and daylight use, to focusing on how clock changes and time-policy affect human health and safety. Several key points are worth emphasising:

• A number of studies document acute increases in cardiovascular risk following the spring clock-forward change. For example, one study found that the rate of ischemic stroke was 8 % higher in the first two days after the switch to DST. American Heart Association+1
• The transition to DST has been associated with more car accidents, reduced productivity and sleep disturbances (e.g., the Harvard Health blog notes: “Moving the clock ahead in the spring … can disrupt sleep and worsen conditions like depression, anxiety, and seasonal affective disorder.”) Harvard Health
• Regarding the circadian alignment, the AASM states flatly: “Standard time is best aligned with human circadian biology.” Sleep Education+1
• The effects are not just short-term. Longer-term misalignment — namely being on permanent DST or remaining out of sync with the sun/clock relationship — is increasingly flagged as a risk factor. One article states: “circadian misalignment … has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks.” PMC

So what has changed is that the “cost side” of the ledger has grown: we now have stronger data linking time-shifts and misalignment with real physiological harm; whereas the “benefit side” (energy savings, etc.) is weaker or more contested. Thus, the debate now centers less on “do we shift time” and more on “should we change the policy,” especially given the human biology dimension.

Pros and Cons in Today’s World

When evaluating whether to keep DST, adopt permanent DST, adopt permanent standard time (ST), or eliminate the clock change altogether, the key is to compare trade-offs. Below is a breakdown.

If we keep the status quo (twice-yearly clock changes)

Pros

• Maintains a summer-evening benefit: more daylight after school/work in the summer months, which can promote recreation, retail, safety in the evening.
• Retains what many people have adapted to culturally and socially; less change to business/industry routines.

Cons

• Biannual disruption: The shift (especially spring forward) produces acute health/safety consequences (heart attacks, strokes, accidents). PMC
• Chronic misalignment: Each change disrupts the circadian rhythm, prompting “social jetlag” that many sleep health researchers say is avoidable. Sleep Education+1
• Public dissatisfaction: Polls show large majorities of Americans dislike the clock-changing. (See other sources)
• The benefit of energy savings is weak/uncertain. Some studies suggest minimal savings; indeed some find usage may increase (e.g., more evening AC usage). Bloomberg School of Public Health

If we adopt permanent Daylight Saving Time (no more changes)

Pros

• Consistent throughout year: no more “spring forward/fall back” disruption.
• Longer evening daylight year-round may boost recreation/commerce, reduce some crime, support outdoor activity.
• Avoids the logistical and health-burden of twice-yearly shifts.

Cons

• Morning darkness in winter: With permanent DST, winter sunrises will be later. This means children, commuters start their day in darkness more often — with potential negative safety, alertness consequences. Many experts worry about that.
• From a circadian health perspective, DST places clocks further from solar time; the AASM and other authorities regard standard time as better aligned with biology. For example, one review says: “Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology.” PMC
• Some of the benefits assumed (energy savings, etc.) may still be modest or offset by other factors (e.g., heating usage in the dark mornings).

If we adopt permanent Standard Time (no changes)

Pros

• From multiple sleep/health bodies this is the “best” alignment with human biology. AASM: “Standard time is best aligned with human circadian biology.” Sleep Education
• Removes the twice-yearly shift and avoids the morning darkness compromise of permanent DST.
• Some recent modelling suggests meaningful health gains: one article claims permanent ST could prevent hundreds of thousands of stroke cases and millions of obesity cases in the U.S. based on circadian modelling. Newsweek+1
• Simplifies time boundary issues and reduces transition risk.

Cons

• Evening daylight in summer will be slightly curtailed compared to permanent DST — some businesses/leisure sectors may object.
• Some regions may feel cultural or economic loss of later evening light.
• Politically may be harder to sell than “more daylight in evening” narrative.

In sum: the health and circadian-alignment arguments strongly favour ending the clock changes and favouring permanent standard time; arguments for DST often centre on lifestyle, recreation, commerce and evening daylight. The question becomes a policy decision of priorities: human biology vs. social/economic habits.

What Is Required to Change It in the U.S.

Under current U.S. federal law, the setting for time-zone and DST decisions is the Uniform Time Act of 1966. That law allows states to opt out of DST entirely and observe permanent standard time, but it does not allow a state to adopt permanent DST unilaterally. In the words of the federal government: “States do not have the authority to choose to be on permanent Daylight Saving Time.” Wikipedia+1

Therefore, what must happen:

• Congress must pass legislation amending the Uniform Time Act to allow permanent DST (or otherwise alter the schedule).
• A state legislature may pass a law to choose permanent standard time (which is already permitted) but cannot go to permanent DST without federal change.
• Because time changes affect interstate commerce, transportation, communications, business, etc., uniformity is a real concern, so the federal role remains central.

Bills in play

In the current 119th U.S. Congress (2025-26):

• The Sunshine Protection Act of 2025 (Senate Bill 29 / House Bill 139) proposes to make permanent Daylight Saving Time nationwide. Both bills were introduced in January 2025. As of late October 2025, however, legislative momentum remains stalled in the Senate, in part because of disagreements about winter morning darkness and other implications. Wikipedia+1
• Meanwhile, many states have passed so-called “trigger laws” or resolutions that express intent to move to permanent DST if Congress authorises it. For example, in Texas in 2025 the legislature passed a resolution in that direction. Wikipedia

Thus, while there’s considerable political interest, the actual legal change remains a matter for Congress. Unless Congress acts, the status quo remains: biannual clock changes, with states free to opt out and stay on standard time, but not free to permanently adopt DST.

The Policy Choice — Framed by Evidence

So what are the key take-away points?

• DST was introduced in a very different era with objectives (energy savings, wartime fuel use) that fit the historical context. Today those objectives are less compelling and the health/biological consequences are much clearer.
• The concept of the circadian rhythm — our internal 24-hour biological clock synchronized by light and dark — has become central to understanding why time-policy matters. When we force misalignment (via clock changes or permanent DST) we risk adverse health and safety effects.
• Expert consensus among sleep and circadian researchers leans heavily toward ending the biannual clock change and favouring permanent standard time. As the AASM states: “Standard time is best aligned with human circadian biology.” Sleep Education+1
• The trade-offs are real: evening daylight matters for social, economic, recreational reasons. But the health costs of misalignment and transition are non-trivial.
• Legally and politically, change is possible — but requires federal legislative action. Until then, states remain limited in what they can do.
• The modelling evidence (e.g., projections that permanent ST could reduce hundreds of thousands of strokes and millions of obesity cases) is striking — though it is based on modelling and circadian assumptions rather than longitudinal “real-world” proof. Newsweek+1

Bottom Line

In the early 20th century, DST made sense in its historical context. But in the 21st century, with vastly changed technology, lifestyles, and understanding of human biology, its justification is weaker — while its costs (especially on the circadian rhythm) are increasingly clear.

The most biologically sound policy appears to be: end the twice-yearly clock change and adopt permanent standard time. That aligns with the overwhelming recommendation of sleep and circadian health experts. If the U.S. moves instead to permanent DST, it may retain some cultural/evening daylight benefits — but it does so at the cost of further misalignment of human biology with the natural light-dark cycle.

Changing the law is feasible, but only if Congress acts. Until then, we are left with the compromise of biannual change — one that many experts argue is the worst of both worlds: disruption plus misalignment.

Appendix — Health Evidence on DST, With Key Numbers & Quotes

A. Expert consensus statements (health authorities)

• American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM), 2025 position (updated):
  “The United States should eliminate seasonal time changes in favor of permanent standard time, which aligns best with human circadian biology… Evidence supports the distinct benefits of standard time for health and safety, while underscoring the potential harms that result from seasonal time changes.” AASM+1
• American Medical Association (AMA) policy:
  The AMA House of Delegates voted to end seasonal time changes and support year-round standard time: “Eliminating the time changes… would be a welcome change. But… permanent daylight saving time overlooks potential health risks.” (policy and press coverage). American Medical Association+2American Medical Association+2

Circadian rhythm, defined: your body’s ~24-hour internal timing system (from circa diem, “about a day”) that synchronizes sleep-wake, hormones, temperature, metabolism, and alertness primarily to light and dark. When civil time is shifted (or kept far from solar time), circadian misalignment results—often called “social jetlag”—and is linked to higher risks across cardiovascular, metabolic, mood, and safety outcomes. (See peer-reviewed overview and AASM statements above.) JCSM+1

B. Acute effects around the spring (“forward”) shift

Cardiovascular

• Heart attacks (AMI): Meta-analysis and multi-setting studies report transient increases after the spring shift. Example synthesis: “DST transitions might increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction… disturbed circadian rhythms and lack of sleep after transitions are plausible mechanisms.” PMC
• Michigan cohort (often cited): +24% AMI on the Monday after spring DST vs. other Mondays. (AHA news release summarizing peer-reviewed work.) American Heart Association

Stroke

• Finnish national data: +8% ischemic stroke during the first two days after a DST transition. PubMed+1

Injuries/accidents

• Fatal motor-vehicle crashes: U.S. fatalities +6% during the workweek after spring forward; the spike shifted in 2007 when Congress moved the DST start date—strong quasi-experimental signal. University of Colorado Boulder
• Economic analysis: “Spring Forward at Your Own Risk” (American Economic Journal: Applied Economics) links DST transition to more fatal crashes using credible identification strategies. American Economic Association

C. Broader safety & performance evidence tied to circadian disruption

• Night-shift driving experiment (mechanism evidence): Polysomnography + driving simulator show markedly higher near-crash risk after circadian disruption and sleep restriction—illustrates the pathway (sleep loss + misalignment → safety risk). PNAS

D. Chronic misalignment: permanent DST vs. standard time

• Clinical/position review (AASM, Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine):
  “Standard time is best aligned with human circadian biology… remaining on DST year-round is less aligned with circadian timing and may carry chronic risks.” JCSM+1
• Circadian-informed modelling (PNAS, 2025):
  Using region-specific light patterns and behavior, authors conclude the biannual shift and DST-tilted schedules impose meaningful, negative health consequences, with permanent standard time minimizing circadian burden in many regions. (Model-based but useful for policy.) PNAS

E. Mixed or null findings (what doesn’t agree)

• Recent cardiology reassessment (Duke, 2025): Press release on new analysis arguing heart-attack spikes may be smaller or inconsistent, suggesting long-term sleep habits matter more than the one-hour shift per se. (Underscores uncertainty bands and the value of focusing on chronic alignment.) Duke University School of Medicine

How to read the literature:

1. Acute risks (first 1–7 days after spring forward) show the most consistent signals (fatal crashes, some AMI/stroke upticks).
2. Chronic risks depend on how far clocks are set from sunlight—hence expert preference for permanent standard time.
3. Effect sizes vary by latitude, seasonality, and population vulnerability; estimates are strongest where identification (e.g., policy shocks) is clean.

F. Selected landmark references (quick list)

• AASM position statements & toolkit (2023–2025): permanent standard time recommended; seasonal shifts linked to health & safety harms. AASM+2AASM+2
• AHA/AAN summaries of acute risks: +24% AMI (Michigan Monday), +8% ischemic stroke (Finland, first two days). American Heart Association+1
• Traffic safety: +6% fatal crashes week after spring forward (CU Boulder write-up of peer-reviewed research); AEJ-Applied Econ paper corroborates. University of Colorado Boulder+1
• Meta/overview on AMI: DST transitions plausibly raise AMI risk, via sleep and circadian disturbance. PMC
• Mechanism evidence: Circadian disruption → higher near-crash risk (PNAS). PNAS
• Counter-evidence note: New 2025 analysis questions size/consistency of AMI spikes. Duke University School of Medicine
• PNAS 2025 modelling: Circadian-informed national scenarios favor permanent ST to minimize health burden. PNAS

G. Policy takeaway from the evidence

1. Most robust risks are acute (post-spring-forward) and safety-related (traffic);
2. Chronic alignment with solar time is the health-optimal endpoint (hence expert preference for permanent standard time);
3. Because state law can’t enact permanent DST alone, any national change (DST permanent or ending clock changes) still requires an Act of Congress—the current vehicle has been the Sunshine Protection Act, which has stalled repeatedly amid concerns about dark winter mornings and health trade-offs. (Legal mechanics discussed in the main essay.) AASM

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

When Words Have Grown Silent

There comes a time in some illnesses when words fall away. We search for the right ones — honest, hopeful, comforting — but the person we love can no longer hear us, it seems, or cannot respond. That has been the reality with my sister, Carol, for nearly three years now. Her body remains, but her mind and spirit seem mostly beyond reach. Catatonic much of the time, she lives in a stillness that tests everyone who loves her. She has had decades of physical challenges.

What do you say to someone who cannot answer? How do you speak into that silence without pretending that everything is okay? If communicative, how do we find the right words?

For me, honesty still matters — perhaps more than ever. The truth is, everything is not okay. Her kidneys are failing; her body is breaking down. Yet in this long decline, I’ve come to see that honesty is not the enemy of hope. It means naming the truth, but doing so in love — allowing both grief and grace to share the same room.

When Carol was still aware, I said the things that needed saying: that I loved her, that her life had mattered, that she had given more than she knew. I told her that God was with her — not as a promise of healing, but as a certainty of presence. Now those words echo in memory, and I trust that she carries them somewhere deep within, where the mind no longer reaches but the soul still listens.

Most of my words now are spoken to Heather, my niece, who has carried this burden with astonishing grace. For years she has tended to her mother hour by hour, often at the cost of her own life’s rhythm. She has sacrificed nearly everything for love. In her, I see something profoundly Christlike — the daily pouring out of self not for recognition, but because love leaves no other choice. She is a true saint.

Jarrad, Carol’s son, walks this road too. Balancing a family and a demanding job, he remains steady and present — his love practical and faithful. Between the two of them, their mother has been surrounded by love in its purest form: love that perseveres quietly long after the world has turned its attention elsewhere.

If Carol could hear, and maybe she can, I want her to know that she is safe, still loved, and that her children have honored her with their faithfulness. I will tell her that God’s mercy is near, that she can rest, and that the love that shaped her family will endure.

And perhaps, even in her silence, she can still hear. Heather believes she can. I’ve come to accept it, too. So, what do you say when you suspect the soul is still listening? I must admit that I had given up hope when Carol was not conscious for over 18 months at one stretch. Heather never wavered. She prayed Carol back for a period so she could enjoy her grandkids and great-grandkids and even celebrate her 75th birthday last February.

You talk about heaven. Not with forced cheerfulness, but with reverent wonder — the kind of awe behind the song “I Can Only Imagine.” I would tell her that the first face she will see will be the face of Jesus, not as a sermon but as a hope I cling to. I would speak of peace beyond pain, of reunion and restoration, of the home God has prepared for those who love Him.

These are not words of denial. They are words of anticipation — reminders that suffering doesn’t get the last word. Love does. This message is not just about this situation with my sister. I write it because I want you to think about it, too.

Even when speech is gone, there are still conversations worth having:

• The conversation of forgiveness — saying what should have been said and trusting God to deliver it.
• The conversation of gratitude — thanking them for the life they lived and the love they gave.
• And the conversation of heaven — imagining together, even in silence, what it will be like when all is finally well.

For those who find themselves in this same place — sitting beside a bed where conversation has ended — know this: your presence still speaks. The tone of your voice, the touch of your hand, the quiet rhythm of your breathing all carry meaning. The dying may not respond, but they often still sense. The spirit recognizes love when it is near.

We don’t need to pretend that everything is fine. We can admit our sorrow, our exhaustion, our longing for release. I vividly remember being alone with my dad when he was dying, telling him it was okay to let go. A similar experience came as they took my brother, Bob, off the life support machines. Faith is not pretending. Faith is holding a hand that cannot hold back and believing that God’s hand is still underneath both of ours.

So what do we say to the seriously ill, when speech has ended? We say what love says best — in few words, or none at all:

“I’m here.”
“You are loved.”
“God is near.”

And when the time comes, we whisper the words of release:

“You can go home now. We’ll be alright. Thank you for everything.”

That isn’t denial. That’s truth wrapped in love — and love is the last language that death can never silence.

Benediction

Lord of mercy and rest,
Be near to those who wait in long illness, and to those who keep the watch beside them.
Let Carol feel, in whatever way she still can, that she is surrounded by love — her children’s, her brother’s, and Yours.
Give Heather and Jarrad peace in their weariness, courage in their care, and the quiet assurance that nothing done in love is ever wasted.
When words fade and strength fails, let Your presence fill the room.
Receive Carol gently when You call her home,
And let those who remain find comfort in knowing
That love endures — even beyond the final breath.

Amen.

I Can Only Imagine

Song by MercyMe

I can only imagine
What it will be like
When I walk by Your side
I can only imagine
What my eyes would see
When Your face is before me
I can only imagine
Yeah

Surrounded by Your glory
What will my heart feel?
Will I dance for You Jesus
Or in awe of You be still?
Will I stand in Your presence
Or to my knees, will I fall?
Will I sing hallelujah?
Will I be able to speak at all?
I can only imagine
I can only imagine

I can only imagine
When that day comes
And I find myself
Standing in the Son
I can only imagine
When all I will do
Is forever, forever worship You
I can only imagine, yeah
I can only imagine

Surrounded by Your glory
What will my heart feel?
Will I dance for you Jesus
Or in awe of You be still?
Will I stand in your presence
Or to my knees will I fall?
Will I sing hallelujah?
Will I be able to speak at all?
I can only imagine, yeah
I can only imagine

Surrounded by Your glory
What will my heart feel?
Will I dance for you Jesus
Or in awe of You be still?
Will I stand in your presence
Or to my knees, will I fall?
Will I sing hallelujah?
Will I be able to speak at all?

I can only imagine, yeah
I can only imagine
I can only imagine, yeah-yeah
I can only imagine
I can only imagine
I can only imagine

I can only imagine
When all I will do
Is forever, forever worship You
I can only imagine

Source: Musixmatch

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

(Matthew 5:13)

1. The Setting and the Saying

When Jesus stood on the hillside overlooking the Sea of Galilee and spoke the words, “You are the salt of the earth,” He was speaking to ordinary people — fishermen, farmers, craftsmen, mothers, and children. And Apostles. These were not the powerful or the privileged; they were the humble, the teachable, and the hungry-hearted. Yet Jesus gave them a title that carried enormous dignity and responsibility. Salt was precious. It preserved life, enhanced flavor, and symbolized purity. To be called “the salt of the earth” was to be entrusted with the moral and spiritual preservation of the world.

2. The Ancient Meaning of Salt

In the first century, salt was not simply a seasoning. It was a preservative, preventing meat and fish from spoiling in a world without refrigeration. Salt was also a symbol of covenant. In Leviticus 2:13, God commanded that every grain offering be seasoned with salt — “the salt of the covenant of your God.” Salt therefore represented endurance, permanence, and incorruptibility. It was even used to seal agreements: “a covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19, 2 Chronicles 13:5) meant a lasting promise.

When Jesus called His followers “the salt of the earth,” He meant they were to be the moral preservative in a decaying world and the living sign of God’s enduring covenant with humankind.

3. The Spiritual Metaphor

Salt enhances flavor. A meal without salt is bland, but the right touch brings out depth, sweetness, and savor. Likewise, a Christian’s presence should bring out the best in others — kindness, honesty, and hope. Our speech is to be “seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6), gracious and wise, able to heal and preserve relationships rather than corrode them.

But salt must maintain its distinctiveness. Jesus warns, “If the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?” (Matthew 5:13b). When believers blend into the world’s corruption, they cease to preserve it. When we compromise truth, the flavor of grace fades.

4. Salt as Preservation and Witness

There is something sobering about this image. Salt was scattered to prevent decay; it was rubbed into meat to hold off rot. It was not merely decorative — it was sacrificial. So too, believers must sometimes go where decay is worst: into the world’s wounds, into places of injustice, loneliness, and fear. Salt works by contact. It cannot preserve from a distance.

To be “the salt of the earth” means entering the places where others have given up, bringing light, integrity, and compassion. It means being the quiet, steady presence that keeps the world from falling apart completely.

5. Losing Our Saltiness

Jesus’s warning about losing salt’s flavor was not theoretical. In ancient times, salt was often impure, mixed with sand or gypsum. When exposed to moisture, the actual sodium chloride could dissolve, leaving behind only tasteless residue. It looked like salt, but it had no power.

A believer can likewise retain the outward appearance of faith — the rituals, the phrases, the reputation — but lose the inward vitality that gives life meaning. True saltiness comes from staying close to the Source — Christ Himself. Without Him, our influence fades, and our witness grows stale.

6. Salt and Light Together

Jesus’s next words form a natural pair: “You are the light of the world.” (Matthew 5:14) Salt preserves from corruption; light reveals truth. One works quietly; the other shines openly. One prevents decay; the other dispels darkness. Together, they form the twofold mission of the disciple — to preserve what is good and to reveal what is true.

7. The Modern Application

Today’s world still needs salt. Truth has become relative, virtue negotiable, and compassion conditional. Our culture often values sensation over substance. Yet Jesus calls His followers not to withdraw, but to influence — to season and preserve society with moral courage, steady compassion, and quiet faithfulness. Every kind word, every honest act, every moment of forgiveness adds salt to the earth.

We do not need to be large in number to make a difference. Just as a small pinch of salt changes the whole flavor of a meal, even one faithful life can change a workplace, a neighborhood, or a family.

8. A Prayer for Saltiness

Lord,
Keep me from losing my flavor.
Preserve my heart from pride and weariness.
Let my presence bring warmth, truth, and healing to those around me.
And when the world feels spoiled beyond hope,
remind me that even a grain of salt still matters to You.
Amen.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

A Celebration of Second Chances and Daily Miracles

There are days that mark birthdays, anniversaries, and holidays — and then there are days that mark survival. “Happy to Be Alive Day” is not found on any calendar, but it might be the most meaningful celebration of all. It is the day when someone realizes, in a flash of gratitude, that they are still here — still breathing, still capable of love, laughter, work, and wonder. It might come after illness, accident, heartbreak, or danger. Or it might simply arrive unannounced one morning, when the light through the window feels like grace.

The Quiet Miracle of Breath

Most days we take our breath for granted. We rush from one obligation to the next, forgetting that every inhalation is a gift. But those who have brushed close to death — whether through surgery, an accident, or even the despair of depression — know that each new morning is a mercy. They often speak of colors seeming brighter, of laughter sounding clearer, of ordinary life feeling extraordinary. Happy to Be Alive Day is the pause in which we remember that miracle.

The Joy of a Baby Laughing

There may be no sound in the world more contagious than the laughter of a baby. It is pure, uncalculated joy — the very sound of life itself discovering delight. A baby’s laugh is proof that happiness can exist without reason, that wonder still renews itself in every generation. It reminds us that joy is not something earned; it’s something we’re given, freely and unexpectedly, just for being here. When you hear that laughter, the world seems right again — as if creation itself is still good, and still unfolding.

From Survival to Renewal

For some, this day has a date: the day the doctors said “You’re in the clear,” the day the car stopped spinning, the day the phone call didn’t bring tragedy. For others, it’s simply today. To celebrate being alive is to choose renewal. It means deciding that the pain that nearly took you will not define you, but refine you. It’s the choice to turn trauma into testimony, and to see every scar as proof of endurance rather than defeat.

The Theology of Gratitude

Spiritually, this day echoes the psalmist’s cry: “This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Gratitude is not a mood; it’s a declaration. It doesn’t deny the darkness — it insists that light still breaks through. Every time we whisper “thank You” — to God, to a friend, to the miracle of continued breath — we practice resurrection. Happy to Be Alive Day is an Easter that happens every morning.

How to Celebrate

There are no cards for this occasion, no songs on the radio. But you can still mark it in your own way:

• Take a walk and notice how many things are alive around you.
• Call someone you love and say the words you almost left unsaid.
• Write down what you’re thankful for, not just the big miracles but the small mercies — a cup of coffee, a steady heartbeat, a laugh that returns after grief.
• Forgive someone, including yourself.
• And above all, tell your story — because someone else needs to know survival is possible.

The Communal Joy

When one person celebrates being alive, it reminds others of their own blessings. A survivor’s gratitude ripples outward. It brings perspective to a hurried world, warmth to those who have forgotten how to hope. The phrase “Happy to Be Alive Day” can be contagious; once spoken aloud, it invites everyone around to pause, breathe, and smile.

Closing Reflection

If life is a book, then every new day is a page the Author has not yet filled. You may not know what’s coming next, but you are still part of the story. So light a candle, pour some coffee, watch the sunrise, and declare without irony or shame:
“Happy to be alive — today, and every day that follows.”

Poem: Alive Again

The morning breaks with silver light,
And breath returns to me—
A quiet pulse, a gift renewed,
A soul set wandering free.

The sky, once gray, now softly glows,
The trees begin to sing;
The world I thought had passed me by
Still holds each living thing.

The tears I shed are holy rain,
That wash the ashes clean;
The pain I knew now blooms as grace,
In fields of evergreen.

So lift your heart, O fragile one,
Let gratitude remain;
For every dawn’s a whispered vow—
“You’re here. Begin again.”