Tag: politics

Texas Local Government: Sovereignty, Delegation, Fragmentation, and the State’s Return to Planning

.Reading time 11 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Only Two Sovereigns

Any serious discussion of Texas local government must begin with a foundational constitutional fact:

In the United States, there are only two levels of sovereign government:
the federal government and the states.

That is the full list.

Counties, cities, school districts, special districts, authorities, councils, boards, and commissions are not sovereign. They possess no inherent authority. They exist only because a state legislature has chosen to delegate specific powers to them, and those powers may be expanded, limited, preempted, reorganized, or withdrawn entirely.

Texas local government is therefore not a story of decentralization.
It is a story of delegated administration, followed—inevitably—by state-directed coordination when delegation produced excessive fragmentation.

The State of Texas as Sovereign and System Designer

The State of Texas is sovereign within its constitutional sphere. That sovereignty includes the authority to:

  • Create local governments
  • Define and limit their powers
  • Redraw or freeze their boundaries
  • Preempt their ordinances
  • Reorganize or abolish them

Local governments are not junior partners in sovereignty. They are instruments through which the state governs a vast and diverse territory.

From the beginning, Texas made a defining structural choice:
rather than consolidate government as complexity increased, it would delegate narrowly, preserve local identity, and retain sovereignty at the state level. That choice explains the layered system that followed.

Counties: The First Subdivision of State Power

Counties were Texas’s original subdivision of state authority, adopted after independence and statehood from Anglo-American legal traditions.

They were designed for a frontier world:

  • Sparse population
  • Horseback travel
  • Local courts
  • Recordkeeping
  • Elections
  • Law enforcement

During the 19th century, Texas rapidly carved itself into counties so residents could reach a county seat in roughly a day’s travel. By the early 20th century, the county map had largely frozen at 254 counties, a number that remains unchanged today.

Counties are constitutional entities, but they are governed strictly by Dillon’s Rule. They have no inherent powers, no residual authority, and little flexibility to adapt structurally. Once the county map was locked in place, counties became increasingly mismatched to Texas’s urbanizing reality—too small in some areas, too weak in others, and too rigid everywhere.

Rather than consolidate counties, Texas chose to work around them.

Dillon’s Rule: The Legal Engine of Delegation

The doctrine that made this system possible is Dillon’s Rule, named after John Forrest Dillon (1831–1914), Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court and later a professor at Columbia Law School. His 1872 treatise, Commentaries on the Law of Municipal Corporations, emerged during a period of explosive city growth and widespread municipal corruption.

Dillon rejected the notion that local governments possessed inherent authority. He articulated a rule designed to preserve state supremacy:

A local government may exercise only
(1) powers expressly granted by the legislature,
(2) powers necessarily implied from those grants, and
(3) powers essential to its declared purpose—not merely convenient, but indispensable.
Any reasonable doubt is resolved against the local government.

Texas did not merely adopt Dillon’s Rule; it embedded it structurally. Counties, special districts, ISDs, and authorities operate squarely under Dillon’s Rule. Even cities escape it only partially through home-rule charters, and only to the extent the Legislature allows.

Dillon’s Rule explains why Texas governance favors many narrow entities over few powerful ones.

Cities: Delegated Urban Management, Not Local Sovereignty

As towns grew denser, counties proved incapable of providing urban services. The state responded by authorizing cities to manage:

  • Police and fire protection
  • Streets and utilities
  • Zoning and land use
  • Local infrastructure

Cities are therefore delegated urban managers, not sovereign governments.

Texas later adopted home-rule charters to give larger cities greater flexibility, but home rule is widely misunderstood. It does not reverse Dillon’s Rule. It merely allows cities to act unless prohibited—while preserving the Legislature’s power to preempt, override, or limit local authority at any time.

Recent state preemption is not a breakdown of the system. It is the system operating as designed.

Independent School Districts: Function Over Geography

Education exposed the limits of place-based governance earlier than any other function.

Counties were too uneven.
Cities were too political.
Education required stability, long planning horizons, and uniform oversight.

Texas responded by removing education from both counties and cities and creating Independent School Districts.

ISDs are:

  • Single-purpose governments
  • Granted independent taxing authority
  • Authorized to issue bonds
  • Subject to state curriculum and accountability mandates

ISDs do not answer to cities or counties. They answer directly to the state. This was one of Texas’s earliest and clearest moves toward functional specialization over territorial governance.

Special Districts: Precision Instead of Consolidation

As Texas industrialized and urbanized in the 20th century, the Legislature faced increasingly specific problems:

  • Flood control
  • Water supply
  • Drainage
  • Fire protection
  • Hospitals
  • Ports and navigation

Rather than expand general-purpose governments, Texas created special districts—single-mission entities with narrow authority and dedicated funding streams.

Special districts are not accidental inefficiencies. They reflect a deliberate state preference:

Solve problems with precision, not with consolidation.

The result was effectiveness and speed, at the cost of growing fragmentation.

MUDs and Authorities: Growth and Risk as State Policy

Municipal Utility Districts and authorities are often mistaken for private or quasi-private entities. Legally, they are governments.

MUDs:

  • Are created under state law
  • Levy taxes
  • Issue bonds
  • Are governed by elected boards
  • Provide essential infrastructure

They allow the state to:

  • Enable development before cities arrive
  • Finance infrastructure without municipal debt
  • Shift costs to future residents
  • Avoid restructuring counties

Similarly, transit authorities, toll authorities, housing authorities, and local government corporations exist to isolate risk, bypass constitutional debt limits, and accelerate projects. These are not loopholes. They are state-designed instruments.

The Consequence: Functional Fragmentation

By the mid-20th century, Texas governance had become highly functional—and deeply fragmented:

  • Fixed counties
  • Expanding cities
  • Independent ISDs
  • Thousands of special districts
  • Authorities operating alongside cities
  • Infrastructure crossing every boundary

The system worked locally, but failed regionally.

No entity could plan coherently across jurisdictions. Funding decisions conflicted. Infrastructure systems overlapped. Federal requirements could not be met cleanly. At this point, Texas made another defining choice.

It did not consolidate governments.
It pulled planning and coordination back upward, closer to the state.

Councils of Governments: State-Authorized Coordination

Beginning in the 1960s, Texas authorized Councils of Governments (COGs) to address fragmentation.

Today:

  • 24 COGs cover the entire state
  • Each spans multiple counties
  • Membership includes cities, counties, ISDs, and districts

COGs:

  • Have no taxing authority
  • Have no regulatory power
  • Have no police power

They exist to coordinate, not to govern—to reconnect what delegation had scattered. Their weakness is intentional. They sit conceptually just beneath the state, not beneath local governments.

MPOs: Transportation Planning Pulled Upward

Transportation forced an even clearer pull-back.

Texas has 25 Metropolitan Planning Organizations, designated by the state to comply with federal law. MPOs plan, prioritize, and allocate federal transportation funding. They do not build roads, levy taxes, or override governments.

MPOs act as planning membranes between federal mandates and Texas’s fragmented local structure.

Water: Where Texas Explicitly Rejected Fragmentation

Water planning most clearly demonstrates the limits of local delegation.

Texas spans 15 major river basins, with annual rainfall ranging from under 10 inches in the west to over 50 inches in the east. Water ignores counties, cities, ISDs, and districts entirely.

Texas responded by creating:

  • Approximately 23 river authorities, organized by watershed
  • 16 Regional Water Planning Areas, overseen by the Texas Water Development Board
  • A unified State Water Plan, adopted by the Legislature

Regional Water Planning Groups govern planning, not operations. Funding eligibility flows from compliance. This is state-directed regional planning with local execution.

Texas also created 95+ Groundwater Conservation Districts, organized by aquifer rather than politics—another instance of function overriding geography.

Public Health and Other Quiet Pull-Backs

Public health produced the same result. Disease ignores jurisdictional lines. Texas authorized county, city-county, and multi-county health districts to exercise delegated state police powers regionally.

The same pattern appears elsewhere:

  • Emergency management regions
  • Workforce development boards
  • Judicial administrative regions
  • 20 Education Service Centers
  • Air-quality nonattainment regions

Each represents the same logic:

  1. Delegation fragments
  2. Fragmentation impairs system performance
  3. The state restores coordination without transferring sovereignty

Final Synthesis

Texas local government did not evolve haphazardly. It followed a consistent philosophy:

  • Preserve sovereignty at the state level
  • Delegate functions narrowly
  • Avoid consolidation
  • Specialize relentlessly
  • Pull planning back upward when fragmentation becomes unmanageable

What appears complex or chaotic is actually layered intent.

Services are delegated downward.
Planning is pulled back upward.
Sovereignty never moves.

That tension—between delegation and coordination—is not a flaw in Texas government.
It is its defining structural feature.

Sydney Australia: An Updated Case Study on Two Previous Essays regarding a Serious Topic

.Reading time 8 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Public tragedies have a way of collapsing time. Old debates are reopened as if they were never had. Long-standing policies are treated as provisional. And political reflexes reassert themselves with a familiar urgency: something must be done, and whatever is done must be fast, visible, and legislative.

A recent Reuters report describing a mass shooting at a beachside gathering in Australia illustrates this pattern with uncomfortable clarity. The event itself was horrifying. The response was predictable. Within hours, political leaders were discussing emergency parliamentary sessions, tightening gun licensing laws, and revisiting a firearm regime that has been in place for nearly three decades.

What makes this episode especially instructive is not that it occurred in Australia, but that it occurred despite Australia’s reputation for having among the strictest gun control laws in the world. The country’s post-1996 framework—created in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre—has long been cited internationally as a model of decisive legislative action. Yet here, after decades of regulation, registration, licensing, and oversight, the instinctive answer remains the same: more law.

This essay treats the Australian response not as an anomaly, but as a continuation—and confirmation—of two arguments I have made previously: one concerning mass shootings as a systems failure rather than a purely legal failure, and another concerning what I have called “one-page laws”—the belief that complex social problems can be solved by concise statutes and urgent press conferences.

The Reuters Story, Paraphrased

According to Reuters, a deadly shooting at a public gathering in Bondi shocked Australians and immediately raised questions about whether the country’s long-standing firearms regime remains adequate. One of the suspects reportedly held a legal gun license and was authorized to own multiple firearms. In response, state and federal officials suggested that parliament might be recalled to consider reforms, including changes to license duration, suitability assessments, and firearm ownership limits.

The article notes that while Australia’s gun laws dramatically reduced firearm deaths after 1996, the number of legally owned guns has since risen to levels exceeding those prior to the reforms. Advocates argue that this growth, combined with modern risks, requires updated legislation. Political leaders signaled openness to acting quickly.

What the article does not do—and what most post-tragedy coverage does not do—is explain precisely how additional laws would have prevented this specific act, or how such laws would be meaningfully enforced without expanding surveillance, discretion, or intrusion into everyday life.

That omission is not accidental. It reflects a deeper habit in public governance.

The First Essay Revisited: Mass Shootings as Systems Failures

In my earlier essay on mass shootings, I argued that these events are rarely the result of a single legal gap. Instead, they emerge from systemic breakdowns: failures of detection, communication, intervention, and follow-through. Warning signs often exist. Signals are missed, dismissed, or siloed. Institutions act sequentially rather than collectively.

The presence or absence of one additional statute does little to alter those dynamics.

The Australian case reinforces this point. The suspect was not operating in a legal vacuum. The system already required licensing, registration, and approval. The breakdown did not occur because the law was silent; it occurred because law is only one input into a much larger human system.

When tragedy strikes, however, it is far easier to amend a statute than to admit that prevention depends on imperfect human judgment, social cohesion, mental health systems, community reporting, and inter-agency coordination. Laws are tangible. Systems are messy.

The Second Essay Revisited: The Illusion of One-Page Laws

My essay on one-page laws addressed a related but broader problem: the temptation to treat legislation as a substitute for governance.

One-page laws share several characteristics:

  • They are easy to describe.
  • They signal moral seriousness.
  • They create the appearance of action.
  • They externalize complexity.

The harder questions—Who enforces this? How often? With what discretion? At what cost? With what error rate?—are deferred or ignored.

The Australian response fits this pattern precisely. Proposals to shorten license durations or tighten suitability standards sound decisive, but they conceal the real burden: reviewing thousands of existing licenses, detecting future risk in people who have not yet exhibited it, and doing so without violating basic principles of fairness or due process.

The law can authorize action. It cannot supply foresight.

Where the Two Essays Converge

Taken together, these two arguments point to a shared conclusion: legislation is often mistaken for resolution.

Mass violence is not primarily a legislative failure; it is a detection and intervention failure. One-page laws feel comforting because they compress complexity into moral clarity. But compression is not the same as control.

Australia’s experience underscores a difficult truth: once a society has implemented baseline restrictions, further legislative tightening produces diminishing returns. The remaining risk lies not in legal gaps, but in human unpredictability. Eliminating that last fraction of risk would require levels of monitoring and preemption that most free societies rightly reject.

This is the trade-off no emergency session of parliament wants to articulate.

Why the Reflex Persists

The rush to legislate after tragedy is not irrational—it is political. Laws are visible acts of leadership. They reassure the public that order is being restored. Admitting that not every horror can be prevented without dismantling civil society is a harder message to deliver.

But honesty matters.

Governance is not the art of passing laws; it is the discipline of building systems that function under stress. When tragedy is followed immediately by legislative theater, it risks substituting symbolism for substance and urgency for effectiveness.

Conclusion

The Bondi shooting is not evidence that Australia’s gun laws have failed in some absolute sense. Nor is it proof that further legislation will succeed. What it is is a case study—one that reinforces two prior conclusions:

First, that mass violence persists even in highly regulated environments because it arises from human systems, not statutory voids.

Second, that one-page laws offer emotional relief but rarely operational solutions.

Serious problems deserve serious thinking. Not every response can be reduced to a bill number and a headline. And not every tragedy has a legislative cure.

The real challenge is resisting the comforting illusion that lawmaking alone is governance—and doing the slower, quieter, less visible work of strengthening the systems that stand between instability and catastrophe.

The Supreme Court and Texas Redistricting: Arguments, Standards, and the Court’s Conclusions

.Reading time 11 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

For more than fifty years, Texas has been at the center of American redistricting law. Few states have produced as many major Supreme Court decisions shaping the meaning of the Voting Rights Act, the boundaries of racial gerrymandering doctrine, and—perhaps most significantly—the Court’s modern unwillingness to police partisan gerrymandering.

Two cases define the modern era for Texas: LULAC v. Perry (2006) and Abbott v. Perez (2018). Together, they reveal how the Court analyzes racial vote dilution, when partisan motives are permissible, how intent is inferred or rejected, and what evidentiary burdens challengers must meet.

At the heart of the Court’s reasoning is a recurring tension:

  • the Constitution forbids racial discrimination in redistricting,
  • the Voting Rights Act prohibits plans that diminish minority voting strength,
  • but the Court has repeatedly held that partisan advantage, even aggressive partisan advantage, is not generally unconstitutional.

Texas’s maps have allowed the Court to articulate, refine, and—many argue—narrow these doctrines.

I. LULAC v. Perry (2006): Partisan Motives Allowed, But Minority Vote Dilution Not

Background

In 2003, after winning unified control of state government, Texas Republicans enacted a mid-decade congressional redistricting plan replacing the court-drawn map used in 2002. It was an openly partisan effort to convert a congressional delegation that had favored Democrats into a Republican-leaning one.

Challengers argued:

  1. The mid-decade redistricting itself was unconstitutional.
  2. The legislature’s partisan intent violated the Equal Protection Clause.
  3. The plan diluted Latino voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, particularly in old District 23.
  4. Several districts were racial gerrymanders, subordinating race to politics.

Arguments Before the Court

  • Challengers:
    • Texas had engaged in unprecedented partisan manipulation lacking a legitimate state purpose.
    • The dismantling of Latino opportunity districts—especially District 23—reduced the community’s ability to elect its preferred candidate.
    • Race was used as a tool to achieve partisan ends, in violation of Shaw v. Reno-line racial gerrymandering rules.
  • Texas:
    • Nothing in the Constitution forbids mid-decade redistricting.
    • Political gerrymandering, even when aggressive and obvious, was allowed under Davis v. Bandemer (1986).
    • Latino voters in District 23 were not “cohesive” enough to qualify for Section 2 protection.
    • District configurations reflected permissible political considerations.

The Court’s Decision

The Court’s ruling was a fractured opinion, but several clear conclusions emerged.

1. Mid-Decade Redistricting Is Constitutional

The Court held that states are not restricted to once-a-decade redistricting. Nothing in the Constitution or federal statute bars legislatures from replacing a map mid-cycle.
This effectively legitimized Texas’s overtly partisan decision to redraw the map simply because political control had shifted.

2. Partisan Gerrymandering Claims Remain Non-Justiciable (or Nearly So)

The Court again declined to articulate a manageable standard for judging partisan gerrymandering.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the controlling plurality, expressed concern about severe partisan abuses but concluded that no judicially administrable rule existed.

Key takeaway:
Texas’s partisan motivation, even if blatant, was not itself unconstitutional.

3. Section 2 Violation in District 23: Latino Voting Strength Was Illegally Diluted

This was the major substantive ruling.

The Court found that Texas dismantled an existing Latino opportunity district (CD-23) precisely because Latino voters were on the verge of electing their preferred candidate.
The legislature:

  • removed tens of thousands of cohesive Latino voters from the district,
  • replaced them with low-turnout Latino populations less likely to vote against the incumbent,
  • and justified the move under the guise of creating a new Latino-majority district elsewhere.

This manipulation, the Court held, denied Latino voters an equal opportunity to elect their candidate of choice, violating Section 2.

4. Racial Gerrymandering Claims Mostly Fail

The Court rejected most Shaw-type racial gerrymandering claims because plaintiffs failed to prove that race, rather than politics, predominated.
This reflects a theme that becomes even stronger in later cases:
when race and politics correlate—as they often do in Texas—challengers must provide powerful evidence that race, not party, drove the lines.

II. Abbott v. Perez (2018): A High Bar for Proving Discriminatory Intent

Background

After the 2010 census, Texas enacted new maps. A federal district court found that several districts were intentionally discriminatory and ordered Texas to adopt interim maps. In 2013, Texas then enacted maps that were largely identical to the court’s own interim maps.

Challengers argued that:

  1. The original 2011 maps were passed with discriminatory intent.
  2. The 2013 maps, though based on the court’s design, continued to embody the taint of 2011.
  3. Multiple districts across Texas diluted minority voting strength or were racial gerrymanders.

Texas argued that:

  • The 2013 maps were valid because they were largely adopted from a court-approved version.
  • Any discriminatory intent from 2011 could not be imputed to the 2013 legislature.
  • Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving intentional discrimination district by district.

The Court’s Decision

In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed almost all findings of discriminatory intent against Texas.

1. Burden of Proof Is on Challengers, Not the State

The Court rejected the lower court’s presumption that Texas acted with discriminatory intent in 2013 merely because the 2011 legislature had been found to do so.

Key Holding:
A finding of discriminatory intent in a prior map does not shift the burden; challengers must prove new intent for each new plan.

This significantly tightened the evidentiary bar.

2. Presumption of Legislative Good Faith

Chief Justice Roberts emphasized a longstanding principle:

Legislatures are entitled to a presumption of good faith unless challengers provide direct and persuasive evidence otherwise.

This presumption made it much harder to prove racial discrimination unless emails, testimony, or map-drawing files showed explicit racial motives.

3. Section 2 Vote Dilution Claims Largely Rejected

Challengers failed to show that minority voters were both cohesive and systematically defeated by white bloc voting in many districts.
The Court stressed the need for:

  • clear demographic evidence,
  • consistent voting patterns,
  • and demonstration of feasible alternative districts.

4. Only One District Violated the Constitution

The Court affirmed discrimination in Texas House District 90, where the legislature had intentionally moved Latino voters to achieve a specific racial composition.

But the Court rejected violations in every other challenged district.

5. Practical Effect: Courts Must Defer Unless Evidence Is Unusually Strong

Abbott v. Perez is widely viewed as one of the strongest modern statements of judicial deference to legislatures in redistricting—even when past discrimination has been found.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent called the majority opinion “astonishing in its blindness.”

III. What These Cases Together Mean: Why the Court Upheld Texas’s Maps

Across both LULAC (2006) and Abbott (2018), a coherent theme emerges in the Supreme Court’s reasoning:

1. Partisan Gerrymandering Is Not the Court’s Job to Police

Unless partisan advantage clearly crosses into racial targeting, the Court will not strike it down.
Texas repeatedly argued political motives, and the Court repeatedly accepted them as legitimate.

2. Racial Discrimination Must Be Proven With Specific, District-Level Evidence

  • Plaintiffs must demonstrate that race—not politics—predominated.
  • Correlation between race and partisanship is not enough.
  • Evidence must address each district individually.

3. Legislatures Receive a Strong Presumption of Good Faith

Abbott v. Perez reaffirmed that courts should not infer intent from

  • prior discrimination,
  • suspicious timing,
  • or even foreseeable racial effects.

4. Section 2 Remedies Require Cohesive Minority Voting Blocs

LULAC (2006) found a violation only because evidence clearly showed cohesive Latino voters whose electoral progress was intentionally undermined.

5. Courts Avoid Intruding into “Political Questions”

The Court has repeatedly signaled reluctance to take over the political process.
This culminated in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), where the Court held partisan gerrymandering claims categorically non-justiciable—a rule entirely consistent with how Texas cases were decided.

Conclusion: Why Texas Keeps Winning

Texas’s redistricting cases illustrate how the Supreme Court draws a sharp—and highly consequential—line:

  • Racial discrimination is unconstitutional, but must be proven with very specific evidence.
  • Partisan manipulation, even extreme manipulation, is permissible.
  • Courts defer heavily to state legislatures unless plaintiffs can clearly show that lawmakers used race as a tool, not merely politics.

In LULAC, challengers succeeded only where the evidence of racial vote dilution was unmistakable.
In Abbott v. Perez, they failed everywhere except one district because intent was not proven with the level of granularity the Court demanded.

The result is that Texas has repeatedly prevailed in redistricting litigation—not necessarily because its maps are racially neutral, but because the Court has set an unusually high bar for proving racial motive and has washed its hands of partisan claims altogether.

What Every Student Should Learn From Civics and Government — The Education of a Citizen

.Reading time 8 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI (4 of 4 in a Series)

If literature teaches us how to think,
and history teaches us where we came from,
and economics teaches us how choices shape the world,

then civics and government teach us how to live together in a free society.

When I was young, civics felt like a recitation of facts — three branches, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. But I didn’t understand the deeper purpose or the tremendous responsibility that citizenship carries. I didn’t see that democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires informed people, disciplined judgment, and a shared understanding of how government actually works.

Years later, I came to realize that civics is not a list of facts to memorize — it is the operating manual for freedom.

This essay explores the essential civic knowledge students should learn, why it matters, and why it may be the single most endangered — and most important — subject today.

1. Understanding the Constitution — The Blueprint of American Government

Every student should know what the Constitution actually does.

At a minimum, students should understand:

  • Separation of powers
  • Checks and balances
  • Federalism (power divided between federal and state governments)
  • Individual rights
  • Limited government
  • Due process and equal protection

These aren’t abstract ideas. They’re the safeguards that prevent:

  • tyranny
  • abuse of power
  • unequal treatment
  • political retaliation
  • the erosion of liberty

Students should know why the Founders feared concentrated power. They should understand the debates between Hamilton and Jefferson, the compromises that made the system possible, and the principles that still hold it together.

A civically educated student knows what the government can do, what it cannot do, and what it should never be allowed to do.

2. How Laws Are Made — And Why It’s Supposed to Be Hard

A free people should know how laws move from idea to reality:

  • committee
  • debate
  • amendments
  • compromise
  • bicameral approval
  • executive signature
  • judicial review

Students should understand why the system has friction. The Founders designed lawmaking to be deliberate, slow, and thoughtful — not impulsive. This protects the nation from sudden swings of emotion, political fads, or the passions of the moment.

When students understand the process, they also understand:

  • why gridlock happens
  • why compromise is necessary
  • why no single branch can act alone
  • why courts exist as an independent check

This is how civics grounds expectations and tempers frustration.

3. Rights and Responsibilities — The Moral Core of Citizenship

Civics is not only about rights; it is also about responsibilities.

Students should understand:

  • free speech
  • free press
  • freedom of religion
  • right to vote
  • right to assemble
  • right to due process

But they should also learn:

  • the responsibility to vote
  • the responsibility to stay informed
  • the responsibility to obey just laws
  • the responsibility to serve on juries
  • the responsibility to hold leaders accountable
  • the responsibility to treat fellow citizens with dignity

A functioning democracy depends as much on personal virtue as it does on institutional design.

4. Local Government — The Level Students Understand the Least

Ironically, the level of government that affects daily life the most is the one students know the least about.

Students should understand:

  • cities, counties, school districts
  • zoning
  • local taxes
  • police and fire services
  • transportation systems
  • water and utility infrastructure
  • public debt and bond elections
  • local boards and commissions
  • how a city manager system works
  • how budgets are created and balanced

Local government is where the real work happens:

  • roads repaired
  • streets policed
  • water delivered
  • development approved
  • transit planned
  • emergency services coordinated
  • property taxes assessed

A civically educated adult understands where decisions are made — and how to influence them.

5. How Elections Work — Beyond the Headlines and Sound Bites

Every student should understand:

  • how voter registration works
  • how primaries differ from general elections
  • how the Electoral College works
  • how districts are drawn
  • what gerrymandering is
  • how campaign finance operates
  • the difference between federal, state, and local elections

They should learn how to evaluate:

  • candidates
  • platforms
  • ballot propositions
  • constitutional amendments
  • city bond proposals
  • school board decisions

Without civic education, elections become personality contests instead of informed deliberations.

6. The Balance Between Freedom and Order

Civics teaches students that government constantly manages tensions:

  • liberty vs. security
  • freedom vs. responsibility
  • majority rule vs. minority rights
  • government power vs. individual autonomy

These are not easy questions.
There are no perfect answers.
But a well-educated citizen understands the tradeoffs.

For example:

  • How far should free speech extend?
  • What powers should police have?
  • When should the state intervene in personal choices?
  • When does regulation protect people, and when does it stifle them?

Civics teaches students how to think through these issues, not what to believe.

7. Why Civics Matters Even More in the Age of AI

Artificial intelligence has changed the public square. It has amplified the need for civic understanding.

AI magnifies misinformation.

A civically uneducated population is easy to manipulate.

AI can imitate authority.

Only an informed citizen knows how to verify sources and test claims.

AI accelerates public emotion.

Civic education slows people down — it teaches them to evaluate before reacting.

AI makes propaganda more sophisticated.

Civics teaches how institutions work, which protects against deception.

Democracy cannot survive without an educated citizenry.

AI is powerful, but it is not responsible. Humans must be.

This is why civics — real civics — is urgently needed.

Conclusion: The Education of a Self-Governing People

History shows that democracies do not fall because enemies defeat them.
They fall because citizens forget how to govern themselves.

Civics teaches:

  • how power is structured
  • how laws are made
  • how rights are protected
  • how communities are built
  • how leaders should be chosen
  • how governments should behave
  • how citizens must participate

If literature strengthens the mind,
and history strengthens judgment,
and economics strengthens decision-making,

then civics strengthens the nation itself.

A free society is not sustained by wishes or by luck.
It is sustained by people who understand the system, value the responsibilities of citizenship, and guard the principles that keep liberty alive.

That is what civics is meant to teach —
and why it must remain at the heart of a complete education.

What Every Student Should Learn From Economics — The Missing Foundation for Adult Life

.Reading time 10 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI (3 of 4 in a Series)

If I struggled with literature when I was young, and if I misunderstood the purpose of history, then economics was the third great gap in my early education. I went through high school without any real understanding of how money works, how governments raise and spend it, how markets respond to incentives, or how personal financial decisions compound over time. I did not grasp the forces shaping wages, prices, interest rates, trade, taxation, inflation, or debt. I did get a good dose in college.

Looking back, I can see clearly:
Economics is the core life subject that students most need — and most rarely receive in a meaningful way.

What educators should want every student to know from required economics courses is nothing less than the mental framework necessary to navigate adulthood, evaluate public policy, make financial decisions, and understand why nations prosper or struggle. Economics is not simply business; it is the study of how people, families, governments, and societies make choices. A few years ago, I attended a multi-day course for high school teachers hosted by the Dallas Federal Reserve. It was an outstanding experience. Resources are there today, thank goodness!

This essay explores the essential economic understanding every student deserves — and why it matters now more than ever.

1. Scarcity, Choice, and Opportunity Cost: The Law That Governs Everything

The first truth of economics is painfully simple:
We cannot have everything we want.

Every choice is a tradeoff. Students should walk away understanding that:

  • Choosing to spend money here means not spending it there.
  • Choosing one policy means giving up another.
  • Choosing time for one activity means sacrificing time for something else.

Economics calls this opportunity cost — the value of the next best alternative you give up.

Once a student grasps this, the world becomes clearer:

  • Why governments cannot fund unlimited programs.
  • Why cities must prioritize.
  • Why individuals must budget.
  • Why nations cannot tax, borrow, or spend without consequences.

This one idea alone can save people from poor decisions, unrealistic expectations, and political manipulation.

2. How Markets Work — And What Happens When They Don’t

Every student should understand the basics of markets:

  • Supply and demand
  • Prices as signals
  • Competition as a force for innovation
  • Incentives as drivers of behavior

These are not theories — they are observable realities.

Examples:

  • When the price of lumber rises, construction slows.
  • When wages rise in one industry, workers shift into it.
  • When a product becomes scarce, people value it more.

Students should also learn about market failures, when markets do not work well:

  • Externalities (pollution)
  • Monopolies (lack of competition)
  • Public goods (national defense)
  • Information asymmetry (the mechanic knows more than the customer)

A well-educated adult should understand why some things are best left to markets, and others require collective action.

3. Money, Inflation, and the Hidden Forces That Shape Daily Life

Economics teaches students what money actually is — a medium of exchange, a store of value, a unit of account. It teaches why inflation happens, how interest rates work, and why credit matters.

This is the knowledge people most need to avoid lifelong mistakes:

  • High-interest debt
  • Payday loans
  • Adjustable-rate surprises
  • Over-borrowing
  • Misunderstanding mortgages
  • Under-saving for retirement
  • Falling for financial scams

Inflation, especially, is a quiet teacher.
Students should know:

  • Why prices rise
  • How purchasing power erodes
  • Why governments sometimes overspend
  • How central banks attempt to stabilize the economy

Without this understanding, adults become vulnerable to false promises, political slogans, and emotional decisions disguised as economic policy.

4. Government, Taxes, Debt, and the Economics of Public Choices

Students should understand how governments fund themselves:

  • income taxes
  • sales taxes
  • property taxes
  • corporate taxes
  • tariffs
  • fees and permits

They should know the difference between:

  • deficits and debt
  • mandatory vs. discretionary spending
  • expansionary vs. contractionary policy

And they should understand the consequences of borrowing:

  • interest costs
  • crowding out
  • inflationary risks
  • intergenerational burdens

A citizen who understands these concepts is harder to fool with slogans like:

  • “Free college for everyone!”
  • “We can tax the rich for everything!”
  • “Deficits don’t matter!”
  • “We can cut taxes without cutting services!”

Economics teaches that every promise has a cost — and someone must pay it.

5. Personal Finance: The Economics of Everyday Life

If there is one area where economics should be utterly practical, it is here.
Every student needs to understand:

  • budgeting
  • saving
  • compound interest
  • emergency funds
  • insurance
  • investing basics
  • retirement accounts
  • debt management
  • risk vs. reward

Without this, students walk into adulthood with no map — and they learn lessons the hard way.

One simple example:
$200 saved per month from age 22 to 65 at 7% grows to roughly $500,000.
The same $200 saved starting at age 35 grows to only ~$200,000.

Time matters.
Compounding matters.
Knowing this early changes lives.

6. Global Economics: Trade, Jobs, and National Strength

Students should understand why countries trade:

  • comparative advantage
  • specialization
  • global supply chains
  • exchange rates

They should understand what drives:

  • tariffs
  • sanctions
  • trade deficits
  • manufacturing shifts
  • labor markets

This is the foundation for understanding why:

  • some industries move overseas
  • some cities decline while others rise
  • automation replaces certain jobs
  • immigration affects labor supply
  • global shocks (like pandemics or wars) reshape economies

A student with global economic literacy is less fearful and more informed — and can better adapt to economic change.

7. Economics and Human Behavior

Economics is not just numbers — it is a window into human nature.

Students should learn:

  • why incentives matter
  • why people respond predictably to policy changes
  • why scarcity shapes decisions
  • why risk and reward are universal
  • why unintended consequences are common

For example:

  • Overly generous unemployment benefits can reduce the incentive to return to work.
  • Rent control can reduce housing supply, raising prices long-term.
  • Strict zoning can artificially inflate housing costs.
  • Tax breaks can shift business decisions but may not produce promised jobs.

Economics helps students see beyond intentions to outcomes.

8. Why Economics Matters Even More in the Age of AI

AI has changed everything — except human nature and economic reality.

AI can process data, but it cannot interpret incentives.

Only a human mind can understand why people behave as they do.

AI can forecast trends, but it cannot grasp consequences.

Consequences require judgment shaped by real-world understanding.

AI can make decisions quickly, but it cannot weigh tradeoffs ethically.

Economics teaches students how those tradeoffs work.

AI makes bad decisions faster when guided by people who don’t understand economics.

A poorly trained human with a powerful tool is dangerous.
A well-trained human with the same tool is wise.

Economics is the steadying force that helps society use AI responsibly.

Conclusion: The Blueprint for a Competent Adult

What educators want students to gain from economics is not technical jargon or narrow theories. It is an understanding of how the world works.

Economics teaches:

  • how choices shape outcomes
  • how incentives drive behavior
  • how money, markets, and governments interact
  • why prosperity is fragile and must be understood
  • how individuals, families, and nations manage limited resources
  • how to avoid financial mistakes and public illusions

If literature strengthens the mind and imagination,
and history strengthens judgment and citizenship,
economics strengthens decision-making — the backbone of adult life.

Together, they form the education every young person deserves before entering the real world. And the most important thing I hope you take away from this essay and my experience: college in general and high school in particular is where you launch into a lifetime of learning (and re-learning). Anything you see in this series that you judge you missed, go back and learn! LFM

What Every Student Should Learn From History — And Why It Matters More Than Ever

.Reading time 9 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI (2 of 4 in a Series)

I did not appreciate history when I was young. In school it felt like a jumble of dates, names, timelines, wars, and facts to memorize. I did not understand the purpose. I didn’t know how to study, I didn’t have mentors who could show me the deeper meaning, and I didn’t yet grasp the stakes. Little did I know that later in life I would marry and have a History Teacher as my partner for life.

Many of my history teachers were coaches. Their instructions were obligatory and without passion. That doesn’t excuse my behavior when I was jolted out of a trance as my teacher-coach impolitely asked if I wanted to go sit on a bulldozer outside the window and hold the operator’s cigar? RL Turner was under construction with a new wing every year I was there.

Years later, I came to see that history is not about memorizing the past — it is about understanding ourselves, our institutions, and the fragile world we inherit. It is about seeing the long arc of human behavior, the patterns of power, the recurring mistakes, and the moments when courage or wisdom changed everything.

What educators want students to learn in their required history courses is nothing less than the knowledge necessary to be responsible adults, thoughtful citizens, and wise participants in a free society.

This essay explores the core knowledge history is meant to provide — and why it matters now more than ever.

1. Understanding Cause and Effect in Human Affairs

At its heart, history teaches students to see how one event leads to another. Nothing happens in isolation.

  • World War I did not “just start.” It was the product of nationalism, alliances, imperial ambitions, and miscalculations.
  • The American Civil Rights Movement didn’t begin in 1955 with Rosa Parks; it was the result of centuries of injustice, Reconstruction failures, Jim Crow laws, and global human rights movements.
  • The Great Depression didn’t appear suddenly; it came from debt cycles, speculation, inequality, monetary decisions, and global linkages.

Students learn that societies succeed or fail for reasons — and those reasons can be studied, understood, and compared.

This is how history trains judgment.

2. Civic Literacy: Knowing How Your World Actually Works

A student who does not understand the history of:

  • the Constitution,
  • federalism,
  • separation of powers,
  • civil rights,
  • local government,
  • economic cycles,
  • or democratic institutions

…cannot fully participate in civic life.

History courses are designed to show how:

  • laws evolve
  • institutions adapt or break
  • cities rise or decline
  • policies succeed or backfire
  • rights are protected or lost

For example:

  • The struggles between small and large states at the Constitutional Convention explain today’s Senate and electoral system.
  • Reconstruction amendments explain modern voting rights battles.
  • The New Deal’s programs explain the foundations of Social Security, unemployment insurance, and federal regulation.

A student who knows this history is not easily misled by simplistic headlines or political rhetoric.

3. Recognizing Patterns: How Civilizations Rise, Prosper, and Fall

History gives students the ability to recognize enduring patterns.

  • Rome expanded, centralized power, grew decadent, ignored warnings, and fell.
  • Empires from the Ottomans to the British expanded too far and faced the limits of overreach. Later in history, you know more about “a bridge too far” than just a phrase.
  • Democracies faltered when citizens grew indifferent, cynical, or easily swayed by demagogues.

Students learn that:

  • debt can bring down nations
  • corruption corrodes institutions
  • leaders matter enormously
  • small decisions accumulate into major turning points
  • freedoms can vanish slowly before they disappear suddenly

History is not prophecy — but it is an early-warning system.

4. Learning From Mistakes We Never Want to Repeat

Human nature has not changed as much as we like to believe. The past is full of mistakes we must understand so we do not repeat them.

Examples include:

  • the Holocaust
  • slavery and segregation
  • totalitarianism in the 20th century
  • failed policies like Prohibition
  • economic disasters caused by speculation and deregulation
  • wars started by arrogance or misunderstanding
  • the letters of C.S. Lewis include him writing a friend on a Saturday night, saying he knows Hitler is bad news, but how compelling he sounded on the radio; then on Sunday after church, he writes another friend about a book he was going to write called The Screwtape Letters, about an old devil explaining to a young devil how to deceive a Christian.

When students learn these stories, they also learn humility — the humility to recognize that people before us believed they were right too.

History is the mirror that shows us our potential for both greatness and destruction.

5. Appreciating Hard-Won Progress

History is not only a record of failure — it is also a record of human resilience, courage, and moral progress.

Students learn:

  • how women gained the vote through decades of relentless organizing
  • how civil rights were won through sacrifice, leadership, and faith
  • how scientific and medical breakthroughs changed the world
  • how democracies have endured because ordinary people defended them

Understanding progress makes students wiser, more grateful, and more realistic about the work that remains.

6. Developing Perspective and Wisdom

History is one of the few subjects that cultivates perspective — the ability to see today’s challenges in context.

When you know:

  • America survived the Civil War
  • the nation rebuilt after the Great Depression
  • cities reinvented themselves after economic collapse
  • democracies withstood wars, recessions, and crises

…you gain a steadying wisdom.
You see that panic solves nothing, cycles are normal, and today’s crises are rarely unprecedented.

This is how history forms adults who are harder to manipulate and easier to reason with.

7. Why History Matters Even More in the Age of AI

Just as with literature, artificial intelligence has not reduced the value of historical understanding — it has magnified it.

AI can provide information, but it cannot judge truth.

Only a historically trained mind can distinguish between fact and propaganda, evidence and opinion, accuracy and distortion.

AI can summarize events, but it cannot explain causes.

It can tell you what happened — but only a thoughtful human being can interpret why it happened.

AI can generate narratives, but it cannot understand consequences.

Understanding consequences requires judgment shaped by actual historical knowledge.

AI can amplify misinformation.

A citizen without historical grounding is vulnerable in a world where false narratives spread instantly.

This is why history education is no longer optional — it is a civic defense mechanism.

Conclusion: The Memory of a Nation

What educators truly want students to learn from history is not trivia. They want students to know:

  • where we came from
  • how our institutions were built
  • how fragile democracy has always been
  • what strengthens a nation
  • what destroys one
  • why citizenship requires knowledge, not just opinion

History teaches humility, judgment, discernment, and perspective — qualities that only become more valuable as the world grows more complex.

If English literature teaches us how to understand the human heart,
history teaches us how to understand the human community: its failures, its triumphs, its responsibilities, and its future.

Together, they form an education worthy of a free people.

Mass Shootings in America

.Reading time 33 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Hard Lessons, Real Stories, and the Ground-Level Solutions Law Enforcement Says Actually Work

Mass shootings in America have become a recurring national nightmare: predictable yet unpredictable, familiar yet devastating, common yet individually shattering. The politics surrounding them often emphasize blame, ideology, or emotion. What receives far less attention is the actual investigative DNA of these attacks — the timelines, the warnings, the coordination failures, and the moments when someone did intervene and stopped a massacre before it began.

To understand what truly works, we must look at the cases, not the slogans. The lives lost — and the lives saved — tell us more than any press conference or political tweet.

This essay explores the problem the way police, detectives, and federal threat-assessment specialists see it: case by case, pattern by pattern, weakness by weakness, and success by success.

I. What Mass Shootings Look Like Through Law Enforcement Eyes

Ask any detective with experience in threat assessment, and they will tell you a truth that ordinary Americans rarely hear:

“We almost always know who’s spiraling long before the shooting happens.
The problem is — nobody acts fast enough, firmly enough, or in sync.”

The datasets from the FBI, Secret Service, ATF, and state fusion centers show several common threads:

  • Shooters leak intent.
  • They study previous attacks.
  • They experience years of decline — socially, mentally, financially, emotionally.
  • They accumulate grievances.
  • Someone always notices something.

Law enforcement doesn’t describe these as “senseless crimes.”
They describe them as interceptable crises.

II. Real Cases That Reveal How Systems Fail — and Could Have Succeeded

These examples are not chosen to support any ideology.
They are simply the clearest windows into reality.

**1. SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, TX (2017)

A tragedy by bureaucracy — 26 killed, 22 injured**

  • Shooter convicted of domestic violence in the Air Force
  • Legally prohibited from firearm ownership
  • Air Force never uploaded the conviction into NICS
  • He passed background checks he should have failed

A church full of families was devastated because a clerk in a military office did not submit a form.

Law enforcement conclusion:
“Fix the reporting system and this shooter never gets a gun.”

**2. UVALDE, TX (2022)

Dozens of warnings — none acted on in time**

  • Multiple students reported terrifying social media posts
  • The shooter had photos of weapons, threats, violent messages
  • Friends said he was “spiraling”
  • A near-complete mental health collapse went unaddressed

The tragedy in Uvalde was compounded by a catastrophic police response — but the earlier failures are equally important: warning signs ignored, red flags dismissed, no early intervention team engaged.

Law enforcement conclusion:
“If someone had been empowered to intervene early, this kid never reaches that school door.”

**3. MIDLAND–ODESSA, TX (2019)

He failed a background check — then bought a weapon privately**

  • Shooter tried to buy a gun from a licensed dealer
  • He FAILED the background check
  • He then purchased a rifle through a private sale with no check
  • He spiraled, snapped during a traffic stop, and killed 7 people

Texas DPS and FBI called this case the “perfect storm of loopholes.”

Law enforcement conclusion:
“A failed background check should trigger a welfare follow-up.
Nobody checked on him.”

**4. FORT HOOD, TX (2009)

A shooter telegraphed his radicalization — nothing done**

  • Major Nidal Hasan repeatedly communicated extremist ideology
  • Colleagues reported him
  • Concerns were dismissed to avoid accusations of bias

This case shows what law enforcement calls “hesitation risk” — institutions afraid to act decisively.

**5. LAS VEGAS, NV (2017)

The outlier — almost no warning signs**

This shooter is the exception that proves the rule.
Law enforcement found:

  • no threats,
  • no manifesto,
  • no social media trail,
  • no extremist network.

He was wealthy, isolated, and meticulous.

Conclusion:
A tiny percentage of cases will bypass all prevention systems.
Most will not.

III. The Cases Where Mass Shootings Were Prevented — Proof That Prevention Works

These are not theories.
These are real, documented saves.

1. Richmond, VA (2022) — A July 4th massacre stopped cold

A man overheard a conversation about an attack planned on a holiday celebration.
He reported it.
Police uncovered weapons, plans, and a manifesto.

Lives saved: potentially hundreds.

2. Lubbock, TX (2021) — A 13-year-old stopped before carrying out school attack

The student had:

  • a detailed map
  • a written kill list
  • weapons ready
  • a manifesto

His grandmother found the notebook and reported him immediately.

Law enforcement conclusion:
“Family vigilance prevented mass casualties.”

3. Daytona Beach, FL (2019) — Threat assessment works

A student posted online:
“I’m going to shoot up the school.”

A classmate reported it.
Within hours:

  • police arrived
  • family cooperated
  • weapons were secured
  • boy received psychiatric evaluation

A textbook intervention.

4. Washington State (2015) — School attack prevented by a friend’s courage

A 15-year-old planned a Columbine-style attack.
He shared part of his plan with a friend.
The friend reported it, despite fear of social backlash.

Police discovered:

  • an AK-47
  • detailed plans
  • written threats

Friendship and courage saved a school.

5. Plano, TX Workplace Attack Prevented (2016)

A disgruntled employee expressed violent intent toward coworkers.
HR flagged it.
The company called police.
He was interviewed, weapons removed, and evaluated.

No attack occurred.

IV. What Law Enforcement Says Actually Works (Not Ideology — Evidence)

After decades of analysis, police agencies, FBI profilers, Secret Service behavioral specialists, and state threat-assessment units consistently identify five high-impact, realistic solutions.

Not bans.
Not fantasies.
Not slogans.

Real solutions grounded in actual casework.

1. Fix the Data — The Fastest Way to Save Lives

Cases like Sutherland Springs and Midland–Odessa show the role of:

  • missing convictions
  • unfiled restraining orders
  • unreported mental-health rulings
  • incorrect identifiers

Law enforcement calls this:

“The invisible failure that kills.”

The fix:
mandatory reporting audits and penalties for noncompliance.

2. County-Wide Threat Assessment Teams (The Best Tool We Have)

Teams combining:

  • sheriff’s office
  • schools
  • mental health
  • prosecutors
  • social workers

These teams already exist in:

  • Virginia (after Virginia Tech)
  • Florida (after Parkland)
  • Utah (statewide)
  • North Texas school districts

And they work.

They have stopped dozens of planned attacks by:

  • interviewing individuals
  • securing weapons temporarily
  • offering services
  • coordinating follow-up
  • de-escalating crises

This is the single most successful prevention method America has.

3. Mandatory Follow-Up on Credible Threat Reports

This is not punitive.
It is welfare-based intervention, used worldwide.

Every credible threat triggers:

  • a home visit
  • mental-health assessment
  • background check review
  • firearm-safety conversation (or temporary transfer if warranted)
  • follow-up plan

This would have intervened in:

  • Parkland
  • Uvalde
  • Santa Fe
  • Highland Park
  • El Paso
  • Dayton

Law enforcement overwhelmingly supports this.

4. Hardening Soft Targets — Without Militarizing Them

Realistic, non-intrusive upgrades:

  • shatter-resistant glass
  • classroom doors that lock from inside
  • unified communications (so responders hear the same thing)
  • interior safe zones
  • trained voluntary armed staff (Texas Guardian Program)
  • real-time law enforcement access to building layouts
  • festival/event perimeter redesigns

These upgrades prevented casualties in:

  • West Freeway Church of Christ, White Settlement, TX (armed volunteer stopped shooter in seconds, 2019)
  • Arvada, CO store attack (2021)
  • multiple school attacks where locked classrooms saved children

5. Breaking Adult Isolation — The Hidden Variable

Law enforcement notes a growing pattern: older, isolated, grievance-driven adults.

Examples:

  • Half Moon Bay (2023)
  • Buffalo supermarket shooter lived in complete isolation for years
  • Dayton shooter with obsessive ideation
  • Midland–Odessa shooter living alone in a squalid shack

Effective interventions:

  • workplace threat reporting
  • veteran wellness checks
  • aging men’s mental health programs
  • community navigator teams
  • training employers to recognize decompensation

These are low-cost and high-impact.

V. The Most Underreported Factor: Courage of Bystanders

Again and again, the preventions happened because someone —

  • a coworker
  • a teacher
  • a classmate
  • a grandmother
  • a friend
  • a roommate

— chose to speak up.

Law enforcement calls this:

“The single most important variable in preventing mass violence.”

Bystanders save more lives than laws.

VI. The Moral Imperative: Replace Hopelessness With Method

Mass shootings aren’t random.
They aren’t unpredictable.
And they aren’t unsolvable.

What we need isn’t a perfect solution — it’s a functional system.

  • Competent reporting
  • Seamless coordination
  • Early intervention
  • Community eyes
  • Physical barriers that buy seconds
  • Adults who refuse to look away

These are the realistic, proven, workable solutions that law enforcement supports because they have watched them succeed in the field.

Conclusion: A Country That Can Change — If It Wants To

America doesn’t have to choose between freedom and safety.
It must choose between chaos and coordination.

The truth is painful but hopeful:

Most mass shootings are preventable.
Not with bans.
Not with magic.
But with systems that work and communities that care.

This is not a political argument.
It is a practical one — written in blood and proven by the cases where tragedy was avoided.

The question now is whether the country is willing to move beyond slogans and toward the solutions that actually save lives.

**APPENDIX

Texas Mass Violence Prevention Framework (2025 Edition)**
A State-Specific Policy, Law-Enforcement, and Case-Based Reference

I. Texas Case Studies (Successes and Failures)

Texas provides a uniquely large dataset for examining mass shootings: rural, suburban, urban, along the border, in oilfield regions, in major metros. These cases reveal consistent system gaps.

A. When the System Failed

1. Sutherland Springs (2017) — Data Failure

  • Domestic violence conviction not reported by the Air Force
  • Shooter passed background checks he should have failed
  • 26 dead, 22 wounded

Gap identified: Failure to report disqualifying convictions to NICS.
Texas impact: Dozens of counties still fail to upload mental-health adjudications consistently.

2. Santa Fe High School (2018) — No Warning System

  • 10 killed, 13 injured
  • Shooter had written violent fantasies, wore trench coat daily, showed disturbing art
  • None of it triggered intervention under existing school policies

Gap identified: Lack of integrated school threat-assessment teams pre-Parkland-style reforms.

3. El Paso Walmart Attack (2019) — Ideology, Isolation, and Online Radicalization

  • Shooter posted manifesto 20 minutes before attack
  • Family saw increasing withdrawal but did not see a way to intervene legally
  • 23 killed, 22 injured

Gap identified: No statewide reporting mechanism for family concern + lack of early intervention infrastructure.

4. Midland–Odessa (2019) — Failed Check + No Follow-Up

  • Shooter failed a background check
  • Still obtained rifle via private sale
  • Escaped all follow-up and monitoring
  • 7 killed, 25 injured

Gap identified: Texas has no “background check failure follow-up” protocol for welfare checks.

5. Uvalde (2022) — Warnings but No Coordinated Response

  • 30+ warning signs in digital posts
  • Peers alarmed
  • Threat assessment not mobilized
  • Failed command, failed entry, failed radios, failed leadership

Gaps identified:

  • early intervention
  • communication systems
  • unified command
  • school hardening
  • law-enforcement coordination

B. When the System Worked (Successful Texas Preventions)

1. Lubbock (2021) — Grandmother Stops School Attack

  • 13-year-old with kill list, weapons, and plans
  • Grandmother reported him immediately
  • Police confiscated weapons, intervened, managed mental-health services

Success factor: Courageous family reporting + rapid police response + cooperative mental health team.

2. Plano Workplace Threat (2016)

  • Employee threatened violence after disciplinary action
  • HR flagged it
  • Plano PD intervened
  • Shooter’s plan was disrupted without arrest

Success factor: Employer training + HR protocols + law enforcement follow-through.

3. White Settlement Church (2019)

  • Shooter killed two people during service
  • Armed volunteer neutralized the shooter within 6 seconds
  • Attack ended before a second reload

Success factor: Legitimated armed volunteer program (“Guardian”-style model) + training + mental readiness.

4. North Texas High School Plots Disrupted (Multiple 2020–2024)

School districts in Denton, Collin, and Tarrant Counties thwarted more than a dozen serious plots because of:

  • school resource officers
  • student tips
  • routine digital threat monitoring
  • counseling interventions
  • multi-party threat assessment teams

Success factor: Post-Parkland statewide reforms requiring threat assessment teams in ISDs.

II. Texas Law Enforcement Consensus (Interviews, Briefings & Reports)

Across:

  • Texas Police Chiefs Association
  • County Sheriffs
  • DPS briefings
  • Texas School Safety Center
  • Fusion centers
  • Large-city PDs (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth)

The consistent message is this:

“Almost every mass shooting is preventable if someone can act early —
but the system doesn’t empower people to act.”

Their concerns fall into five categories:

1. Lack of Consequences for Non-Reporting

Agencies that fail to upload disqualifying records face no meaningful penalties.
Sheriffs say:

“If reporting is optional, tragedy is inevitable.”

2. Fragmented Threat Assessment

Texas has strong school systems, but adult threat assessment is weak.

DPS Colonel Steven McCraw has repeatedly said:

“Adult shooters fall completely outside school safety structures.”

3. Soft Targets and Weak Facilities

Sheriffs in rural counties often point out:

“Our churches, fairs, festivals, and schools were built before the era of mass violence.”

Meaning: physical layouts are outdated.

4. Too Many Lone, Isolated, Angry Adults

Texas PDs say they increasingly deal with:

  • divorced, isolated adult men
  • untreated mental illness
  • workplace grievances
  • housing-insecure individuals
  • online radicalization across the spectrum

This is the modern offender profile — not simply youth shooters.

5. No Statewide Mechanism for “Background Check Failures”

Law enforcement consistently recommends:

“If someone fails a background check, they should receive a welfare check.
Not to seize weapons — but to understand the risk.”

This one reform would have prevented Midland–Odessa.

III. Concrete State-Level Solutions (Non-Ideological and Realistic)

These are politically feasible, budget-achievable, and supported by law enforcement.

1. Mandatory Reporting Compliance Audits

Texas should audit:

  • county clerks
  • JP courts
  • district courts
  • mental-health orders
  • protective orders

Goal: ensure all disqualifying convictions enter NICS/DPS within 24–72 hours.

Cost: low
Impact: high

2. “Texas Adult Threat Assessment Teams” (T-ATAT)

Modeled after school threat teams but focused on adults.

Teams would include:

  • Sheriff’s office
  • Constables
  • Mental health mobile crisis units
  • Prosecutors
  • Social workers
  • Veteran services
  • Employers (optional)

Focus:

  • early intervention
  • de-escalation
  • temporary safety plans
  • coordinated follow-up

This responds to half the Texas shooter profile, which is adult male isolation.

3. Background Check Failure Protocol (Welfare Check + Mental Health Screen)

If a Texan:

  • fails a background check
  • attempts an illegal straw purchase
  • makes “alarmingly specific” threats

…then DPS notifies the sheriff in that county.

Sheriff conducts:

  • welfare check
  • mental-health referral (if needed)
  • firearm safety conversation
  • case documentation

No confiscation required.
No criminal charge required.

Simply breaking the isolation saves lives.

4. Realistic Target Hardening for Schools, Churches & Events

Low-cost priorities:

  • shatter-resistant entry glass
  • interior locking mechanisms
  • campus-wide communication systems
  • unified law enforcement radio channels
  • updated maps accessible digitally to responders
  • controlled-access vestibules
  • volunteer security programs

These already saved lives at:

  • White Settlement church
  • West Texas schools where locked classrooms stopped entry
  • multiple thwarted school plots

5. Community Navigator Teams for Isolated Adults

Texas sheriffs strongly endorse pilot programs in:

  • rural counties
  • oilfield regions
  • borderside colonias
  • veteran-dense areas

Navigators perform:

  • wellness checks
  • reconnecting individuals to family, church, social services
  • employment referrals
  • mental health connection
  • regular follow-up

This is cheap and effective.

6. Employer Training Statewide (especially in high-stress industries)

Texas mass violence often emerges from:

  • trucking
  • energy sector
  • distribution warehouses
  • food processing plants
  • call centers

Employers need:

  • threat-recognition training
  • HR escalation pathways
  • connections to sheriff’s offices

This prevented the Plano case.

IV. “What Good Intervention Looks Like” — Texas Examples

Case A: North Texas High School Plot Stopped (2023)

  • Student posted detailed shooting threat
  • Classmates reported immediately
  • Threat team met same day
  • Parents cooperated
  • Police conducted home visit
  • Weapons removed temporarily
  • Student entered crisis counseling
  • No criminal record created

Outcome:
No violence.
Family relieved.
School safe.
Child receives long-term care.

Case B: Rural West Texas Veteran (2020)

  • Veteran in crisis making alarming comments
  • Neighbor reported
  • Sheriff’s deputy and veteran liaison responded
  • Weapons temporarily transferred to brother
  • Veteran placed in VA crisis stabilization program
  • Follow-up by navigator team

Outcome:
Incident avoided.
Veteran stabilized.
No arrests.
Family grateful.

Case C: Dallas-Area Workplace (2022)

  • Worker said he wanted to “take out” supervisors
  • HR trained under Texas Workplace Safety Pilot Program
  • HR called police
  • PD interviewed, implemented voluntary safety plan
  • Mental health assistance provided
  • Employer changed his job assignment

Outcome:
No violence.
Employee recovered, remained employed.

V. Statewide Recommended Implementation Plan

Year 1 (Fast Wins)

  • NICS reporting audits
  • Texas Adult Threat Assessment Teams (pilot in 8 major counties)
  • DCFS and mental health reporting refreshers
  • Standardized threat reporting hotline

Year 2 (Scalable Programs)

  • statewide employer training
  • community navigator expansion
  • school physical-security retrofits
  • integrated law enforcement communications

Year 3 (Long-Term Infrastructure)

  • full digital courthouse → DPS transmission
  • unified statewide threat-assessment database
  • mental-health telecrisis network across rural counties

VI. “Texas Principles” for Mass Violence Prevention

Law enforcement leaders often summarize what works into three Texas-style principles:

**1. “If it’s predictable, it’s preventable.”

Almost every attacker reveals intent.

**2. “You can’t fix what you don’t see.”

Isolation breeds violence — intervention disrupts it.

**3. “Don’t wait for perfect. Act when something seems wrong.”

Prevention happens early or not at all.

VII. Conclusion of Appendix

Texas is poised to lead the nation with non-ideological, realistic, enforceable policies that:

  • honor the Second Amendment
  • respect local control
  • prioritize law enforcement input
  • rely on early intervention, not confiscation
  • strengthen communities, not weaken them
  • save lives without dividing the country

Mass violence is not an unsolved mystery.
It is a coordination problem, a communication problem, and at its core, a human connection problem.

Texas can fix these.
Texas has the tools.
Texas has the cases.
And now, Texas has the blueprint.

**APPENDIX B

“What I’ve Learned After 20 Years Responding to Mass Violence”
A Law Enforcement Perspective

I’ve worn a badge in Texas for more than two decades. I’ve seen quiet towns shaken by unspeakable violence, and I’ve seen ordinary citizens step up to prevent tragedies the public will never hear about. I’ve walked through crime scenes that will stay with me until the day I retire, and I’ve sat at kitchen tables with parents who have no words left except, “Why?”

After all this time, I’ve learned that nearly everything the public argues about is only a sliver of the truth. Mass violence doesn’t happen because one law wasn’t passed or because one political side is right and the other is wrong. It happens because systems fail, people look away, warnings go unreported, and institutions are afraid to act when someone is spiraling.

This is what it looks like from where I stand.

I. “We Almost Always Know”

The hardest truth is this:

In most cases, the shooter was on someone’s radar long before they opened fire.

I’m not talking about clairvoyance.
I’m talking about patterns.

In case after case, we’ve seen:

  • threats posted online
  • violent fantasies shared with friends
  • domestic disturbances
  • histories of grievance and obsession
  • escalating isolation
  • coworker concerns
  • school warnings
  • welfare checks that never happened
  • mental health breaks that went untreated

We call these “pre-incident indicators.”
They’re real. They’re measurable. And they’re almost always present.

The tragedy is not that we don’t know —
it’s that we don’t act fast enough or in sync enough.

II. “It’s Not the Gun — It’s the Spiral”

I’ve taken more guns off the street than I can remember. Hunting rifles. Handguns. A few illegally modified weapons. And yes, rifles with large magazines.

But here’s the truth you learn after 20 years:

It’s never the gun in isolation.
It’s the downward slide no one interrupts.

Shooters are rarely “snapped” individuals.
They are individuals who decline over months or years.

We see:

  • isolation
  • job loss
  • family collapse
  • grievance accumulation
  • untreated depression
  • anger fixation
  • obsession with previous shooters
  • social withdrawal
  • personality change

By the time they act violently, they’ve been at the bottom of a well for a long time—and no one lowered a rope.

If you want to know what law enforcement believes will make the biggest difference, it’s this:

Catch the spiral before the crash.

III. “Families Know First”

I wish the public understood how many times a parent, sibling, spouse, or grandparent has quietly whispered to me:

“I’m scared of what he might do.”
“He’s not the same person anymore.”
“He talks about violence.”

But they didn’t know what to do.
They didn’t want their family member arrested.
They didn’t want to “ruin his life.”
They didn’t know if it was serious.
Sometimes they were embarrassed.

Here’s what I want every Texan to know:

Calling us doesn’t automatically mean a criminal charge.
Most of the time, early intervention means:

  • mental-health evaluation
  • voluntary firearm transfer
  • crisis services
  • counseling
  • follow-ups
  • family coordination

The public imagines a SWAT raid.
What usually happens is a conversation at the kitchen table.

IV. “Threat Assessment Teams Work — Better Than Anything Else We’ve Tried”

The best tool we have isn’t complicated:

Get the right people around the same table before someone gets hurt.

A threat assessment team — the way we run them in parts of Texas — includes:

  • detectives
  • school representatives
  • mental-health clinicians
  • prosecutors
  • social service partners
  • sometimes clergy or veterans’ liaisons

When these teams function, they catch things that no single agency would ever catch alone.

I’ve seen teams:

  • talk a teenager out of a violent plan
  • get an unstable adult into treatment
  • mediate workplace grievances
  • defuse domestic crises
  • remove firearms voluntarily
  • help families reconnect
  • stop ideologically motivated plots

And the public never knows because nothing bad happened.

I can tell you without hesitation:

Threat assessment has prevented more mass shootings than any law ever passed.

V. “Follow-Up Saves Lives”

One of the biggest failures in this country is the belief that if someone doesn’t break the law, there’s nothing we can do.

That’s false.

We can:

  • check on them
  • talk to them
  • bring mental-health professionals
  • involve the family
  • secure weapons voluntarily
  • create a safety plan
  • follow up again and again

The cases that haunt me are the ones where the warning signs were clear, someone called, and then the file sat on a desk — or was never shared with the people who could act.

The most effective thing we can do is simple:

If a credible threat comes in, someone must check on that person within 24 hours.

Not to arrest.
To assess.
To intervene early.

VI. “You Don’t Need to Militarize a School to Make It Safe”

I’ve been inside dozens of Texas schools.
Some built in the 1960s with glass doors that could be breached by a lawn chair.
Some built after 2018 with lockdown doors, radio repeaters, and secure vestibules.

You know what helps?

  • classroom doors that lock from the inside
  • shatter-resistant glass
  • clear communication systems
  • unified law enforcement radio channels
  • controlled access
  • trained school staff who know what to do

You know what doesn’t help?

  • finger-pointing
  • slogans
  • political theater

Small, inexpensive improvements save more lives than any sweeping overhaul.

VII. “We Need Community, Not Just Cops”

People assume mass violence is a police problem.
It isn’t.

It’s a community problem.

The most important actors in prevention are:

  • families
  • coworkers
  • HR officers
  • school counselors
  • pastors
  • friends
  • neighbors

You see the cracks before we do.
You see the shift in behavior.
You hear the disturbing comment.
You watch the decline.

And when you call us, you give us a chance to help before the damage is done.

VIII. “The Truth No One Wants to Admit”

I’ve seen evil.
I’ve seen pain.
I’ve seen things I won’t describe in a public essay.

But I’ve also seen:

  • a grandmother save a school
  • a coworker prevent a workplace massacre
  • a pastor de-escalate a veteran in crisis
  • a teacher stop a tragedy with one phone call
  • a church security volunteer act in six seconds to end a deadly attack

The truth is this:

Mass shootings are not unstoppable.
They are unaddressed.
There’s a difference.

We can fix this.
We know how.
We have the tools.
We just have to use them consistently.

IX. My Message to Texans

If you want to save lives, don’t start with Congress.
Start with:

  • local coordination
  • early intervention
  • better reporting
  • stronger families
  • human connection
  • courage when something feels wrong

Texas has already stopped attacks because the right person spoke up.
And Texas has suffered attacks because the right person stayed silent.

We can change that.

X. Final Word

I’ve carried children out of classrooms.
I’ve stepped over shell casings in churches.
I’ve held the hands of grieving parents.
I’ve watched communities heal with patience, courage, and love.

I don’t want to see another town go through this.
And we don’t have to.

Not if we act early.
Not if we act together.
Not if we see the warning signs and refuse to ignore them.

Most shooters are preventable long before a trigger is ever pulled.
Our job is to step in before someone reaches the point of no return.

And that is something Texas can lead the nation in doing — not through division, but through determination.

Understanding the U.S. Peace Framework for Ukraine and Russia: The 28-Point Plan and the 19-Point Ukraine Revision

.Reading time 35 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

INTRODUCTION

The war in Ukraine is now in its fourth year. Ukraine has shown resilience and valor, yet the military, economic, and demographic realities are increasingly difficult. Russia has absorbed sanctions, mobilized industry, and stabilized its front lines. The United States and Europe continue to support Ukraine, but both face growing political and fiscal constraints.

Against this backdrop, U.S. national security officials drafted a 28-point peace framework (as reported by Reuters, The Washington Post, ABC News, and The Guardian). The document appears to have been an exploratory starting point—one that tested which elements might be negotiable.

Ukraine, Europe, and many in Washington immediately objected to several provisions. As a result, a revised 19-point framework emerged, significantly amending or deleting many of the Russia-leaning elements.

Below is the complete, authoritative breakdown of the original 28-point plan and the revised 19-point plan, with all points explained, sourced, amended, and analyzed.

I. TERRITORIAL & POLITICAL POINTS

1. Freeze the front line as the ceasefire line

Original (as reported by Reuters on Nov. 24, 2025, citing two senior U.S. officials familiar with the draft):
The draft called for an immediate ceasefire, freezing forces along the current line of contact.

Explanation:
Freezing the line stops the fighting, but battlefield lines often solidify into political borders. Because Russia holds more territory, a freeze risks entrenching Russian gains unless non-recognition is spelled out clearly.

Amended:
Ceasefire line remains, but explicitly does not confer legal recognition of Russian control.

U.S. reaction:
Supportive — ceasefire without legitimization.

Russia reaction:
Likely negative — Moscow prefers implicit recognition.

Strategic impact:
Buys time without surrendering legal sovereignty.

2. Ukraine formally accepts Russian control over Luhansk

Original (as reported by The Washington Post on Nov. 24, 2025, citing European diplomats briefed on the text):
Ukraine would acknowledge Russian control over most of Luhansk.

Explanation:
This would have forced Ukraine to surrender constitutional territory and millions of citizens—politically impossible.

Amended:
Deleted entirely.

U.S. reaction:
Positive — avoids violating sovereignty norms.

Russia reaction:
Negative — Russia seeks international recognition of annexation.

Strategic impact:
Prevents loss of internationally recognized territory.

3. Ukraine formally accepts Russian control over Donetsk

Original (as reported by ABC News on Nov. 23, citing officials familiar with Geneva discussions):
The proposal included formal acceptance of Russia’s hold on most of Donetsk.

Explanation:
Legitimizing Russia’s Donbas claims would validate ten years of aggression and destabilize Ukraine’s government.

Amended:
Deleted entirely.

U.S. reaction:
Relieved.

Russia reaction:
Disappointed.

Strategic impact:
Keeps Donetsk’s status open for negotiation.

4. Ukraine acknowledges Russian control of Crimea

Original (as reported by Reuters on Nov. 24, citing U.S. officials):
Included language implying de facto recognition of Russia’s 2014 annexation.

Explanation:
Would set a global precedent for territorial seizure by force.

Amended:
All recognition language removed.

U.S. reaction:
Supportive — maintains non-recognition.

Russia reaction:
Very negative — Crimea is central to Putin’s narrative.

Strategic impact:
Preserves Crimea’s legal status as Ukrainian territory.

5. International referendums in occupied territories

Original (as reported by The Guardian on Nov. 24, citing diplomatic sources):
Proposed internationally monitored referendums on whether occupied areas would join Russia.

Explanation:
Impossible to conduct fairly under occupation; Russia controls the environment.

Amended:
Referendum mechanism eliminated.

U.S. reaction:
Supportive — avoids sham legitimacy.

Russia reaction:
Strongly negative — Russia relies on referendums.

Strategic impact:
Prevents artificially legitimizing annexed areas.

6. Demilitarized buffer zone

Original (as reported by Reuters on Nov. 24, citing U.S. security officials):
The draft proposed a demilitarized zone separating forces.

Explanation:
DMZs often require the weaker side (Ukraine) to withdraw further, giving the stronger one (Russia) strategic depth.

Amended:
Replaced with flexible “security arrangements.”

U.S. reaction:
Positive — avoids disadvantaging Ukraine.

Russia reaction:
Likely dissatisfied.

Strategic impact:
Keeps negotiations flexible and avoids a pre-engineered imbalance.

II. MILITARY & SECURITY POINTS

7. Ukraine permanently renounces NATO membership

Original (as reported by The Washington Post, Nov. 21, citing U.S. and EU officials):
The draft included a requirement that Ukraine adopt permanent neutrality and ban NATO membership.

Explanation:
This is Russia’s top strategic goal; it would permanently weaken Ukraine’s security.

Amended:
Deleted — NATO membership deferred, not denied.

U.S. reaction:
Strong support.

Russia reaction:
Highly negative.

Strategic impact:
Preserves Ukraine’s long-term security options.

8. Cap Ukraine’s armed forces at ~600,000

Original (as reported by ABC News on Nov. 23, citing negotiators):
The draft proposed a strict cap on Ukraine’s troop numbers.

Explanation:
A fixed cap locks Ukraine into inferiority while Russia remains unconstrained.

Amended:
Removed entirely.

U.S. reaction:
Positive.

Russia reaction:
Negative.

Strategic impact:
Prevents structural disadvantage.

9. Ban NATO bases in Ukraine

Original (as reported by Reuters, Nov. 24):
Included a blanket prohibition of foreign bases.

Explanation:
Would constrain Western military support.

Amended:
Softened to “no sudden deployments.”

U.S. reaction:
Acceptable.

Russia reaction:
Wanted a hard ban.

Strategic impact:
Allows future Western cooperation.

10. Limit NATO deployments in Eastern Europe

Original (as reported by The Guardian on Nov. 24):
Restricted NATO troop presence near Russia.

Explanation:
Gives Russia de facto influence over NATO decisions.

Amended:
Rewritten as non-binding “avoid escalatory moves.”

U.S. reaction:
Strong approval.

Russia reaction:
Unhappy.

Strategic impact:
Maintains NATO autonomy.

11. Intrusive inspections of Ukraine’s military

Original (as reported by ABC News, citing Geneva officials):
Allowed inspectors to verify Ukrainian compliance.

Explanation:
Resembles armistice terms for defeated states.

Amended:
Replaced with voluntary transparency.

U.S. reaction:
Approves.

Russia reaction:
Opposes — inspections favored Russia.

Strategic impact:
Protects Ukraine’s sovereignty.

12. U.S.-chaired Peace Council

Original (as reported by Reuters on Nov. 24, citing U.S. officials):
Placed the U.S. in charge of compliance oversight.

Explanation:
Alienates Europe; Russia distrusts unilateral U.S. leadership.

Amended:
Recast as a multinational body.

U.S. reaction:
Accepts.

Russia reaction:
Mixed.

Strategic impact:
Enhances legitimacy and reduces suspicion.

13. Use frozen Russian assets for reconstruction

Original (as reported by Reuters on Nov. 24, 2025, citing senior U.S. officials involved in the drafting):
The draft called for more than $100 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets to be applied directly to Ukraine’s reconstruction needs under a U.S.-guided structure.

Explanation:
Legally bold and politically popular in the West, this shifts the financial burden off U.S./EU taxpayers and onto Russia. Moscow, however, views seizure of sovereign assets as economic warfare.

Amended:
Retained; now structured under joint U.S.–EU governance, improving legitimacy.

U.S. reaction to amendment:
Very supportive — strengthens Western coordination.

Russia reaction to amendment:
Extremely negative; calls it “financial piracy.”

Strategic impact:
Provides Ukraine a reliable, long-term reconstruction mechanism.

14. Automatic sanctions relief for Russia

Original (as reported by The Washington Post on Nov. 24, 2025, citing diplomats familiar with the proposal):
The draft included “automatic rollback” of sanctions as Russia met milestones.

Explanation:
This makes Russia’s path out of sanctions predictable, but allows for manipulation — partial compliance could unlock major relief.

Amended:
Automatic relief removed; sanctions relief becomes conditional and discretionary.

U.S. reaction:
Positive — retains leverage.

Russia reaction:
Negative — loses guaranteed benefits.

Strategic impact:
Prevents premature or undeserved sanctions relief.

15. Long-term U.S.–Ukraine economic integration

Original (as reported by ABC News on Nov. 23, citing negotiators in Geneva):
Outlined multi-decade plans for economic partnership in energy, technology, agriculture, and infrastructure.

Explanation:
Anchors Ukraine into the Western economic system long-term, reducing reliance on Russia.

Amended:
Retained and expanded to include the EU as a full partner.

U.S. reaction:
Strongly supportive.

Russia reaction:
Deeply negative — sees it as a permanent Western pivot.

Strategic impact:
Makes Ukraine structurally Western in its economic orientation.

16. Restore Russia’s access to SWIFT and global banking

Original (as reported by Reuters on Nov. 24, citing U.S. officials):
Proposed allowing Russia back into SWIFT if certain conditions were met.

Explanation:
Access to global banking is a top Russian priority; it would ease financial isolation.

Amended:
Reinstatement is deferred indefinitely, tied to full verified compliance.

U.S. reaction:
Supports delaying relief.

Russia reaction:
Highly negative — wants early SWIFT access.

Strategic impact:
Maintains financial pressure on Russia.

17. Ukraine restores Russian transit corridors

Original (as reported by The Guardian, Nov. 24, citing European negotiators):
Suggested reopening Ukrainian transit routes for Russian goods.

Explanation:
Early restoration benefits Russia economically without requiring Russian withdrawals.

Amended:
Transit rights now tied to full compliance and verified steps.

U.S. reaction:
Supportive — Ukraine should not ease Russian logistics prematurely.

Russia reaction:
Disappointed — early transit was economically attractive.

Strategic impact:
Strengthens Ukrainian leverage in negotiations.

18. International monitoring of Ukrainian elections

Original (as reported by ABC News on Nov. 23, citing diplomats in Geneva):
Included language pushing for internationally monitored elections in Ukraine.

Explanation:
Although transparency is good, mandating externally supervised elections can appear intrusive and undermine Ukrainian sovereignty.

Amended:
Election oversight now voluntary, at Ukraine’s discretion.

U.S. reaction:
Supportive — respects Ukraine’s democratic processes.

Russia reaction:
Likely negative — Russia hoped mandated elections could weaken Kyiv politically.

Strategic impact:
Protects Ukraine’s political independence and legitimacy.

IV. HUMANITARIAN POINTS

19. Return deported Ukrainian children

Original (as reported by Reuters on Nov. 24, 2025, citing humanitarian negotiators):
Russia required to repatriate Ukrainian children relocated to Russia or occupied territories.

Explanation:
Among the clearest alleged war crimes of the conflict, with thousands of children documented as forcibly transferred.

Amended:
Strengthened — return of children becomes an early, non-negotiable prerequisite.

U.S. reaction:
Very supportive — moral and legal necessity.

Russia reaction:
Resistant — Russia uses children for propaganda and leverage.

Strategic impact:
Crucial humanitarian and moral benchmark.

20. Comprehensive POW exchange

Original (as reported by ABC News and the Kyiv Independent during Geneva coverage):
A full-for-full exchange of all prisoners held by both sides.

Explanation:
A humanitarian priority for both populations; reduces suffering and builds early trust.

Amended:
Retained fully.

U.S. reaction:
Supportive.

Russia reaction:
Mixed — wants to retain leverage over Ukrainian POWs.

Strategic impact:
Creates a foundation for confidence-building.

21. Humanitarian corridors

Original (as reported by The Guardian, citing negotiation summaries):
Safe routes for civilians during ceasefire implementation.

Explanation:
Essential for reducing civilian harm; however, Russia has a track record of violating corridors.

Amended:
Retained unchanged.

U.S. reaction:
Supportive.

Russia reaction:
Publicly supportive, but implementation doubtful.

Strategic impact:
Reduces humanitarian risk and civilian casualties.

22. Family reunification rights

Original (as reported by Reuters and ABC News):
Both sides must restore rights for families separated by war, deportation, or evacuation.

Explanation:
Addresses long-term trauma and recovery; facilitates civil society rebuilding.

Amended:
Retained without changes.

U.S. reaction:
Positive.

Russia reaction:
Neutral — low political cost.

Strategic impact:
Supports social recovery and humanitarian stability.

V. GOVERNANCE & ENFORCEMENT POINTS

23. International observers along the ceasefire line

Original (as reported by Reuters on Nov. 24, 2025, citing two European security officials familiar with the draft):
The draft called for a multinational observer mission with authority to monitor the ceasefire line and document violations.

Explanation:
Observers help verify compliance and prevent covert advances. Russia has historically restricted observer access in occupied territories (e.g., OSCE in Donbas), making this a contentious but essential provision.

Amended:
Retained, explicitly under a multinational mandate with negotiated but broader access.

U.S. reaction:
Supportive — transparency strengthens enforcement.

Russia reaction:
Likely resistant — prefers to control outside access.

Strategic impact:
Improves verification and limits the ability of either side to cheat undetected.

24. Multinational monitoring of violations

Original (as reported by The Guardian on Nov. 24, citing European diplomats briefed on the negotiations):
The plan proposed a multi-state monitoring body using drones, satellite imagery, and on-the-ground reports to verify compliance.

Explanation:
Such monitoring reduces misinformation and creates a shared fact base. Russia dislikes multilateral oversight because it weakens Moscow’s ability to manipulate the narrative.

Amended:
Retained; cooperative monitoring emphasized.

U.S. reaction:
Approves — ensures shared responsibility and consistent reporting.

Russia reaction:
Negative — Russia prefers bilateral arrangements where it has greater leverage.

Strategic impact:
Hardens enforcement and helps maintain credibility of ceasefire reporting.

25. Annual compliance review conference

Original (as reported by ABC News on Nov. 23, citing negotiators):
The draft proposed yearly conferences where signatories evaluate compliance and discuss violations.

Explanation:
Provides predictability and structured dialogue, but can become symbolic if enforcement lacks teeth.

Amended:
Still present but decisions are advisory, not binding.

U.S. reaction:
Accepts — keeps diplomacy ongoing.

Russia reaction:
Unenthusiastic — dislikes public scrutiny.

Strategic impact:
Enables recurrent dialogue while preventing deadlock-inducing requirements.

26. Sanctions snap-back mechanism

Original (as reported by Reuters on Nov. 24, citing U.S. officials):
Included automatic reinstatement of sanctions if Russia violated terms.

Explanation:
Automatic snap-back is a strong deterrent, but Russia views it as a system that traps them in sanctions indefinitely.

Amended:
Snap-back retained but now includes political discretion rather than mechanical triggers.

U.S. reaction:
Approves — balances enforcement with diplomatic flexibility.

Russia reaction:
Strongly negative — ensures sanctions remain a lingering threat.

Strategic impact:
Maintains pressure while allowing room for diplomacy.

27. No legal immunity for Russian officials

Original (as reported by The Washington Post on Nov. 24, citing diplomatic officials):
The earliest drafts included discussions of legal immunities for Russian officials involved in wartime decisions.

Explanation:
Amnesty might entice Russia but violates accountability norms, clashes with ICC investigations, and is politically impossible in Ukraine and the West.

Amended:
All immunity language was removed entirely.

U.S. reaction:
Strongly supportive — aligns with Western legal principles.

Russia reaction:
Angry — immunity is coveted by the Kremlin elite.

Strategic impact:
Preserves war-crimes accountability and international legal norms.

28. Proposed 10–20 year non-aggression treaty

Original (as reported by ABC News on Nov. 23, citing negotiators in Geneva):
The draft proposed a long-term treaty preventing either side from using military force for 10–20 years.

Explanation:
Although symmetrical on paper, it locks Ukraine into accepting the status quo while allowing Russia to consolidate control, rearm, and pressure Ukraine through non-military means.

Amended:
Recast as “mutual security guarantees” without requiring neutrality, troop caps, or long-term no-force pledges.

U.S. reaction:
Supportive — avoids freezing territorial losses.

Russia reaction:
Negative — loses the ability to freeze gains permanently.

Strategic impact:
Prevents de facto acceptance of Russian occupation for decades.

LAYPERSON-FRIENDLY CONCLUSION

(Rewritten with qualifiers, sources, and clarity)

After evaluating the original 28-point framework and the revised 19-point version, here is what a normal reader should understand:

1. The original plan leaned heavily toward Russia — and was unworkable.

It would have forced Ukraine to give up territory, military capacity, and future NATO membership. European and Ukrainian officials described it as too close to the Kremlin’s demands. It was never going to be accepted.

2. The amended plan fixes almost all the unacceptable elements.

It removes forced concessions, takes out neutrality clauses, eliminates troop caps, and preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty.

3. Russia likely dislikes most of the amendments.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said (Reuters, Nov. 24):

“We have seen no acceptable proposal that recognizes the new realities.”

“New realities” = Russia’s illegal annexations.

4. Ukraine supports the direction of the amendments.

President Zelenskyy publicly stated (ABC News, Nov. 23):

“Ukraine will never accept any agreement that legitimizes Russian occupation.”

Removing concessionary elements aligns the plan with Ukraine’s red lines.

5. Ukraine cannot likely fight indefinitely without U.S. support.

NATO Commander Cavoli told Congress (April 2024):

“Without U.S. assistance, Ukraine’s ability to defend itself would be severely compromised.”

CIA Director William Burns warned (May 2024):

“There is a very real risk that the Ukrainians could lose on the battlefield” if aid stops.

These statements are public and authoritative.

6. If U.S. aid drops substantially, Russia likely gains the upper hand long-term.

Not overnight — but gradually and decisively.

Russia has:

  • larger population
  • greater industrial output
  • entrenched defensive lines
  • artillery dominance

Ukraine has determination — but not unlimited resources.

7. This is why diplomacy is coming back into focus.

Not to surrender Ukraine, but to prevent:

  • a Russian victory,
  • an endless war,
  • and political collapse of Western support.

The amended framework is not ideal.
But it tries to balance sovereignty, fairness, and political reality.

VI. U.S. POLITICAL REACTIONS (REPUBLICANS + DEMOCRATS)

1. Republican Reaction

Republicans are divided, but not in the ways some assume.

1A. National-Security Republicans (Graham, Sullivan, McConnell, Cornyn)

This group strongly supports Ukraine and views a frozen conflict as a strategic victory for Russia.

Sen. Lindsey Graham said (Feb. 28, 2024):

“A freeze is a win for Putin.”

Their view of the amended framework:

  • Approve removal of Russian-concession terms
  • Support conditional sanctions
  • Oppose freezes that lock in Russian gains
  • Back multinational monitoring

Bottom line: Ukraine must survive; Russia must not be rewarded.

1B. “America First” Republicans

This faction is skeptical of unlimited Ukraine aid and emphasizes domestic priorities.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said (2023):

“Ukraine is not the 51st state.”

Their view of the amended framework:

  • Prefer a ceasefire that reduces U.S. spending
  • Support negotiations sooner rather than later
  • Oppose long-term U.S. guarantees
  • Mixed on sanctions (some favor rollback)

Bottom line: America should not carry the burden indefinitely.

2. Democratic Reaction

Democrats also split but align more closely overall.

2A. Mainstream Democrats (Biden administration, Senate Democrats)

They see support for Ukraine as essential to global stability.

President Biden said (Dec. 2023):

“If we walk away, Ukraine will lose — and Russia will win.”

Their view of the amended framework:

  • Strongly support removal of territorial concessions
  • Insist sanctions stay conditional
  • Oppose forced neutrality
  • Cautious about freezes
  • Support humanitarian and oversight elements

Bottom line: Protect Ukraine, deter Russia, maintain NATO unity.

2B. Progressive Democrats

More focused on humanitarian outcomes and ceasefires.

Their view:

  • Support humanitarian provisions
  • Support ceasefire exploration
  • Oppose rewarding Russia
  • Doubt long-term military solutions

Bottom line: End suffering; avoid endless war.

3. Rare Bipartisan Agreement

Despite deep divisions, both parties agree on these fundamentals:

  • No forced territorial concessions
  • No immunity for Russian officials
  • No automatic sanctions relief
  • Ukraine remains sovereign
  • A Russian victory would destabilize Europe and embolden China

This is why the amended framework — not the original — fits within Washington’s political lanes.

4. Where They Differ

Republicans (America First):

  • Aid fatigue
  • Want early diplomacy
  • Less willing to commit long-term

Democrats (mainstream):

  • Support continued aid
  • Fear a Russian victory
  • More cautious about ceasefires

Progressives:

  • Want humanitarian-driven talks
  • Skeptical of military-first approaches

5. What This Means for the Framework

The original 28-point plan would have been dead on arrival.
Too Russia-friendly, too destabilizing, impossible to sell in Congress.

The amended 19-point framework is now politically survivable.
Not ideal, not complete, but far more balanced.

Russia is still unlikely to accept it now —
but if battlefield dynamics or internal pressures change,
this may become the foundation for a future settlement.

FINAL BOTTOM-LINE SUMMARY

  • The revised framework is fairer but not yet enforceable.
  • It removes injustices for Ukraine but adds no real leverage over Russia.
  • Ukraine needs continued U.S. support — and that support is politically fragile.
  • Russia is unlikely to make concessions unless pressured by events.
  • The framework is less about immediate peace and more about shaping the eventual terms when the war’s dynamics force all sides to reconsider.

**VII. Is the U.S. Preparing to Pivot Its Ukraine Policy?

The Signs, the Signals, and the Real Motive Question**

Even after the amended 19-point framework is cleaned up and made more balanced, one hard question remains:

If this plan doesn’t really force Russia to do anything differently,
why did U.S. strategists push it so hard?
Is the real target actually Ukraine?

Based on public reporting, official testimony, and how the plan evolved, it appears the United States may be preparing, slowly and quietly, to pivot its Ukraine policy from “open-ended support for victory” toward “support tied to an eventual political settlement.”

Not an announced pivot. Not an official doctrine. But the direction of travel.

1. The 28-Point Plan as a Signal — Not Just a Draft?

According to Reuters, The Washington Post, and ABC News, the original 28-point plan was drafted by U.S. officials and presented to Ukraine and European allies only after it was largely formed.

It:

  • froze Russian gains in place
  • contemplated recognition or acceptance of occupied territory
  • constrained Ukraine’s NATO path
  • capped Ukraine’s armed forces
  • offered structured sanctions relief to Russia

European officials told The Washington Post privately that the plan looked too close to what Moscow wanted and that they had not been fully briefed before it was floated.

That doesn’t look like a document written solely to comfort Kyiv. It looks like a document written to test the limits of what Ukraine and Europe might swallow if pushed hard enough.

2. The Refined 19-Point Plan: Cleaning Up Optics, Not Creating Leverage

After sharp pushback, the U.S. and Ukraine worked on a “refined” 19-point framework in Geneva. Reuters and other outlets report that the most controversial items (territorial concessions, NATO ban, troop caps, immunity, automatic sanctions relief) were removed.

This made the plan:

  • more defensible in Kyiv
  • more acceptable in Europe
  • more survivable in Washington

But crucially, the refinements do not add new, immediate costs for Russia:

  • no mandatory withdrawals
  • no timelines for de-occupation
  • no hard enforcement measures that bite Moscow now

The revised framework is fairer, but it is not stronger in terms of pressure on Russia.

That is consistent with a U.S. posture of:

“We’re not ready to force Russia yet; we’re starting by shaping what Ukraine will eventually be expected to accept.”

3. Open Evidence of Pressure on Ukraine

The strongest clue that this plan is being used more on Ukraine than on Russia comes from reporting about the Thanksgiving deadline.

According to The Washington Post, U.S. officials told Ukrainian counterparts that if they did not sign onto the plan by Thanksgiving, they risked losing future U.S. support.

If accurate, that is not a message to Moscow. That is a lever applied to Kyiv.

It supports the intuition of many people:

This framework may function less as a tool to squeeze Russia, and more as a way to start “lowering the hammer” on Ukraine — gently at first, but clearly.

Washington cannot easily compel Moscow. It can, however, condition aid and political support to Kyiv.

4. U.S. Intelligence Messaging: Setting the Stage

At the same time these frameworks surfaced, U.S. intelligence and military leaders have been warning out loud about Ukraine’s dependence on U.S. support.

  • CIA Director Bill Burns has said there is “a very real risk that the Ukrainians could lose on the battlefield” without additional aid, stressing that Russia has “regained the initiative” as Ukrainian ammunition shortages mount.
  • NATO Commander Gen. Christopher Cavoli has testified that without U.S. assistance, Ukraine’s ability to defend itself “would be severely compromised,” warning about artillery ratios that could reach 10:1 in Russia’s favor.

These statements serve a double purpose:

  • Justify supplemental aid in the near term
  • Signal that Ukraine cannot assume indefinite U.S. support

That is exactly the environment in which a political framework gains weight: when military victory looks uncertain and open-ended war looks unsustainable.

5. Two Plausible Interpretations of U.S. Motives

My question to AI gets to the heart of intent. There are at least two plausible behavior.

Interpretation 1: Softly Conditioning Ukraine for an Eventual Settlement

Under this view, U.S. strategists:

  • know Russia won’t concede in the short term,
  • know Europe is fatigued,
  • know U.S. political patience is limited,
  • know Ukraine cannot reconquer all territory,

so they begin to:

  • establish what a “reasonable” endgame might look like,
  • socialize those ideas with Kyiv and allies,
  • use the framework (and quiet deadlines) to signal that support may increasingly be tied to movement toward a political process.

In this interpretation, the framework is primarily aimed at Ukraine, not Russia. It creates a normative box:

“If you reject this, you’re the one rejecting peace.”

That is very close to what you articulated as “lowering the hammer on Ukraine.”

Interpretation 2: Laying Track for a Future Moment

Another, slightly softer reading is that:

  • The U.S. knows the conditions for a settlement are not yet present.
  • It expects military and political conditions to change (in Russia, Ukraine, Washington, or Europe).
  • It wants to have a detailed framework ready for that moment so that talks don’t start from zero.

Here, the framework is a pre-negotiation template, not a real-time peace plan.

But even in this scenario, the document still functions as a subtle constraint on Ukraine, signaling:

“These are roughly the lines along which we, your main backer, can live with a settlement someday.”

6. Does Any of This Mean the U.S. “Wants” Ukraine to Lose?

No — it does not necessarily mean that.

More likely, it means U.S. strategists:

  • no longer fully believe Ukraine can achieve a complete military victory (recovering all territory, including Crimea),
  • want to protect Ukraine from total defeat,
  • want to limit Russian gains,
  • but also want to avoid endless, open-ended spending and escalation risks.

So they try to carve out a future where:

  • Ukraine survives as a sovereign state,
  • Russia does not get everything it wants,
  • the war doesn’t go on forever,
  • and the U.S. is not writing huge checks indefinitely.

In that sense, the framework is not pro-Russian — but it may be less pro-Ukrainian than earlier rhetoric suggested.

7. The Hard Reality My Question Exposes

What bothers me — and rightly so — is that:

  • The amended plan demands very little from Russia right now,
  • while it begins to shape and limit the range of acceptable options for Ukraine,
  • and U.S. officials have reportedly used it as leverage on Kyiv (with warnings about future support).

That strongly suggests the framework functions more as:

A tool for managing Ukraine’s expectations and future choices

than as:

A tool for forcing Russia to change its behavior.

That’s the “real motive” concern, stated plainly.

And until there is real leverage on Russia — military, economic, political, or diplomatic — Moscow has little incentive to treat this framework as anything more than a document on someone else’s desk. The next step to watch is a likely US confrontation with Ukraine. LFM

Do Republicans Still Want to Kill the Affordable Care Act?

.Reading time 17 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

A Comprehensive Analysis of the Law, the Politics, and the Reality

For more than a decade, the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—was the most divisive domestic policy in American life. When Democrats passed the law in 2010 without a single Republican vote, the GOP responded with a unified identity-shaping mission: repeal and replace. For years, “repeal” was not merely a policy position; it was a pledge, a litmus test, and a rallying cry. The House voted more than fifty times to dismantle the ACA. In 2017, with a Republican president and full Republican control of Congress, the party came one dramatic vote away from delivering on that promise.

But the American political landscape of 2025 could not be more different. Today, Republicans do not truly want to kill the ACA—not politically, not strategically, and not practically. The repeal war has ended, not with a dramatic policy reversal, but with a quieter, deeper recognition: the ACA is now woven into the fabric of American life. To understand how this transformation occurred—and why Democrats’ claim that “Republicans have no plan” does not withstand scrutiny—one must examine the ACA itself, the early years of market turmoil, the evolution of public opinion, the GOP’s long list of proposed replacements, and the changing priorities of Republican voters.

I. What the ACA Actually Contains: The Architecture of the Law

The ACA reshaped the American health system through a combination of coverage rules, benefit requirements, financial subsidies, market reforms, and tax changes. Its design is not modular; it is integrated. This complexity makes it extraordinarily difficult to uproot.

The service side of the ACA rests on four pillars.

First, the law introduced guaranteed issue and community rating, which require insurers to accept all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions and forbid charging sicker people more than healthier ones. This ended a decades-long practice of denying coverage to those who needed it most.

Second, the ACA established a national floor of essential health benefits: hospitalization, maternity care, mental health treatment, emergency services, prescription drugs, laboratory services, pediatric care, rehabilitative therapy, and preventive screenings. These requirements eliminated “junk plans” that appeared inexpensive but failed catastrophically when people became seriously sick.

Third, the law created the Health Insurance Marketplace, allowing consumers to compare standardized plans. Marketplace enrollees receive income-based subsidies that cap how much of their income they must spend on premiums, transforming coverage affordability for millions of low- and middle-income Americans.

Fourth, the ACA expanded Medicaid to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level. Though the Supreme Court made expansion optional, more than forty states ultimately adopted it. Medicaid expansion is now one of the most durable components of the law.

The fiscal side of the ACA includes a mix of taxes, fees, and Medicare savings. The law originally included an individual mandate to encourage healthy people to join the insurance pool. It imposed higher Medicare taxes and a net investment income tax on wealthy households. It added industry fees and reduced certain Medicare overpayments to help finance subsidies and Medicaid expansion. This combination of service and funding mechanisms forms a complex ecosystem—too interconnected to repeal without massive disruption.

While the ACA expanded coverage and standardized essential benefits, these improvements came with a real cost: premiums in the individual market rose sharply in the first several years. Insurers had to cover sicker populations and offer more comprehensive benefits, leading to substantial premium increases for unsubsidized middle-class families. This early cost shock fueled much of the political backlash against the ACA and helped energize the repeal movement.

II. Why Republicans Originally Opposed the ACA

Republicans opposed the ACA for both ideological and structural reasons. They viewed the law as an unprecedented federal intrusion into the health-care marketplace, one that forced insurers to offer government-standardized benefits and compelled individuals to purchase insurance through a mandate. Conservatives argued that these mandates distorted markets, raised premiums for the unsubsidized middle class, and expanded federal authority beyond traditional bounds.

Republicans also viewed Medicaid expansion as financially unsustainable and believed it would trap able-bodied adults in dependency. They argued that the ACA redistributed wealth through taxes on high earners and industries, created new entitlements through subsidies, and imposed costly regulations on employers. In short, to Republicans in the 2010s, the ACA was not a reform—it was an overreach.

III. The ACA’s Market Impact: Early Turbulence, Later Stabilization

The first several years of the ACA were marked by significant volatility. Insurers struggled to price plans because they lacked actuarial data on the newly guaranteed-issue population. Sick individuals enrolled in large numbers; healthy individuals enrolled more slowly. Premiums rose sharply between 2015 and 2017. Several major insurers left state marketplaces, and some rural counties faced the prospect of having only one insurer—or none at all.

The ACA attempted to stabilize markets through three mechanisms: risk corridors, risk adjustment, and reinsurance. But Congress underfunded the risk corridor program, resulting in insurer losses and lawsuits. Reinsurance helped temporarily but expired after three years. Risk adjustment continued to function, but not well enough to offset early turbulence.

However, after the initial shock, the markets stabilized. Premiums leveled off. Insurer participation returned. Marketplace enrollment grew steadily. The Congressional Budget Office reported normalized risk pools. The ACA marketplaces now operate more like mature, regulated utilities than experimental new systems, dramatically reducing the appetite for repeal.

Still, any honest assessment of the ACA must be set against the broader affordability crisis gripping the country. Healthcare and insurance premiums—especially in the individual market—remain among the fastest-rising household expenses in America. Even after the ACA’s markets stabilized, premiums and deductibles remain high for millions of middle-class families who earn too much to qualify for subsidies but too little to comfortably absorb $15,000–$20,000 in annual premiums and out-of-pocket costs. In an era when housing, childcare, transportation, and food are all rising faster than wages, healthcare operates as a second rent payment. The affordability squeeze—felt across red and blue states, among Democrats and Republicans alike—is why the national conversation has shifted from ideological battles over the ACA to a more universal demand for relief. The question shaping the next decade of healthcare will not be repeal or expansion, but whether either party can meaningfully reduce costs for ordinary Americans who feel increasingly crushed by the price of simply staying insured.

IV. Why Repeal Politics Collapsed

The failure of the 2017 repeal attempt marked a turning point. Public opinion had shifted. Millions of Americans now relied on ACA protections, Medicaid expansion, and marketplace subsidies. Parents kept adult children on their plans. Cancer survivors and diabetics could no longer be denied insurance. Small-business owners, gig workers, and early retirees used marketplace coverage as their primary insurance source.

Even deeply conservative states such as Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri adopted Medicaid expansion through ballot initiatives—meaning Republican voters themselves demanded ACA benefits that Republican politicians had long opposed.

The political consequences were immediate. In the 2018 midterms, Republicans lost 41 House seats, driven largely by voters afraid of losing health protections. GOP strategists learned that healthcare repeal was electorally toxic. The repeal war ended not only because the ACA grew popular, but because repeal became a guaranteed losing issue.

V. Why Healthcare Is No Longer a GOP Base-Mobilizing Issue

The Republican Party’s priorities shifted dramatically in the post-2017 era. Voters who once mobilized around healthcare turned their focus toward immigration, inflation, crime, energy policy, foreign competition, and cultural issues. Healthcare—complex, technocratic, and incremental—lost its place as a galvanizing cause.

Many Republican voters now benefit from the ACA themselves. Millions rely on marketplace plans, Medicaid expansion, or pre-existing condition protections. Repealing the ACA would harm their own constituencies—something few Republican leaders are willing to risk.

Repeal also failed to inspire base voters in recent cycles. Unlike border policy or inflation concerns, healthcare does not produce the emotional intensity or visual impact that modern political communication depends on. This change in voter psychology removed the grassroots pressure that once energized repeal efforts.

VI. How Republicans Chip Away at the ACA Today

While Republicans no longer seek full repeal, they continue to reshape the ACA in targeted ways.

They push for broader state waivers that allow alternative benefit designs and relaxed regulatory standards. They promote short-term limited-duration plans and association health plans, which offer cheaper premiums by bypassing ACA benefit requirements. They favor Medicaid work requirements and expanded catastrophic insurance options. They advance large Health Savings Accounts and consumer-directed care models. And through regulatory and budgetary strategies, Republican administrations have adjusted subsidy rules, weakened employer mandates, and reduced ACA administrative infrastructure.

These actions do not dismantle the ACA. Instead, they create a parallel market—leaner, cheaper, and more flexible—that slowly shifts healthier consumers away from ACA-regulated plans, subtly weakening certain parts of the law without openly attacking its core.

VII. Republican Alternative Plans: The Record vs. the Myth

One of the most enduring political claims surrounding the ACA is the assertion that Republicans “never offered an alternative.” This narrative persists because the GOP failed to unify behind one plan, not because it lacked them. In reality, Republicans introduced a long list of comprehensive replacement frameworks.

In 2009, before the ACA passed, Senators Tom Coburn and Richard Burr, along with Representatives Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes, introduced the Patients’ Choice Act, which provided universal tax credits, large HSAs, interstate competition, and state-based high-risk pools.

Representative Tom Price followed with the Empowering Patients First Act, introduced in 2010, 2013, and 2015. This bill contained one of the most detailed conservative health architectures ever drafted—built on age-based tax credits, expanded HSAs, insurance deregulation, state innovation grants, and targeted support for high-cost patients.

Between 2013 and 2016, the Republican Study Committee proposed successive replacement models emphasizing catastrophic coverage, tort reform, association health plans, interstate competition, and state-level innovation. In 2015, Rep. Phil Roe introduced America’s Health Care Reform Act, co-sponsored by over 130 Republicans, combining age-based credits with insurance competition and liability reform.

In 2016, Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled A Better Way, the House GOP’s official healthcare blueprint, which proposed age-adjusted credits, Medicaid per-capita caps, and “continuous coverage” rules.

In 2017, the House passed the American Health Care Act—a full repeal-and-replace bill that would have restructured Medicaid, replaced subsidies with age-based credits, and created a large fund for high-risk pools and reinsurance. Though it failed in the Senate, it was a genuine replacement plan.

That same year, Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy proposed a state block-grant system that would convert ACA funding into flexible state allocations, allowing states to design systems of their choosing.

Even after repeal failed, Republicans continued offering alternatives through regulatory reform: expanding short-term plans, association plans, price transparency rules, and catastrophic options. The Republican Study Committee later released its Framework for Personalized Health Care, and the developing 2025 “Freedom to Choose Healthcare” outline continues this lineage.

The historical record is clear: Republicans offered many replacement plans. What they lacked was internal consensus, not ideas.

VIII. The New Republican Reality: Reshape, Don’t Repeal

The Republican Party of 2025 accepts what was once unthinkable: the ACA is here to stay. Repeal is no longer desired, viable, or strategically wise. Instead, Republicans aim to bend the ACA toward a more market-driven system—one with broader choice, fewer mandates, more catastrophic options, expanded HSAs, and greater state control.

The battle that once defined the GOP has shifted. The question is no longer whether the ACA will survive, but how it will evolve.

Conclusion

The Affordable Care Act has moved from controversial experiment to enduring institution. Republicans who once sought its destruction now seek its modification and coexistence. The reasons are clear: the ACA’s benefits became popular, its markets stabilized, its protections hardened politically, Republican voters themselves came to rely on it, and other issues rose to dominate the party’s priorities. The GOP did not lose the repeal war because it lacked ideas. It lost because the ACA became too integrated into American life to uproot—and because no single conservative vision could unite the party.

Today, Republicans are not fighting to kill the ACA. They are fighting to influence what comes next. The battle has shifted from repeal to revision, from rejection to adaptation—a quieter, more pragmatic struggle over the future of American healthcare.

Cities at a Crossroads: Understanding the Findings of City Fiscal Conditions 2025

.Reading time 18 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

With Integrated Texas Analysis and Case Studies

Based on the National League of Cities Report (2025)
(Source: “City Fiscal Conditions 2025” PDF) 2025-City-Fiscal-Conditions-Rep…

Introduction

The City Fiscal Conditions 2025 report arrives at a moment when American cities are quietly but decisively transitioning into a new era of fiscal discipline. For several years after the pandemic, local governments benefited from an unusual combination of strong economic conditions and extraordinary federal aid. Revenue surged as consumers spent aggressively, home values climbed, and the job market reached historic strength. Cities responded by expanding public services, restoring depleted reserves, and tackling long-delayed projects.

But this report makes it clear that the “recovery period” is over. Growth has cooled, inflation remains persistent, and the federal support that once acted as a financial stabilizer is now winding down. The challenge for cities today is not collapse or crisis—it is how to regain balance in a world that feels more constrained, more expensive, and more uncertain than the one they just emerged from.

Texas cities illustrate these national trends with particular force. Their rapid population growth, heavy reliance on sales tax, and strict state revenue limitations make them a lens through which the pressures of this new era can be seen even more sharply.

I. From Rebound to Restraint: A New Phase of Municipal Budgeting

During FY2024, municipal general fund spending rose sharply—up 7.5 percent when adjusted for inflation. This increase was partly the result of postponed investments from the COVID years, when many cities limited expenditures and built reserves. It was also fueled by federal recovery programs such as the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), both of which infused substantial resources into local budgets.

By contrast, FY2025 reflects a deliberate slowing. Spending is still rising, but only by 0.7 percent, suggesting that cities are tightening operations and reassessing priorities. Revenue projections tell the same story: after a healthy 3.9 percent increase in FY2024, cities now expect a 1.9 percent decline for FY2025. This decline is driven largely by the tapering of federal relief funds and the normalization of consumer behavior after several years of unusually high spending.

Texas Context: Revenue Limits Under Rapid Growth

Texas cities feel this shift even more acutely. Most Texas municipalities rely heavily on sales tax revenues, which surged during the post-pandemic boom but have since flattened. When sales activity cools, city budgets weaken immediately because there is no corresponding income tax or other broad-based revenue source to cushion the decline. At the same time, the Texas 3.5 percent State Property Tax Revenue Cap prevents cities from increasing property tax collections to keep pace with population growth, even when new residents significantly increase service demand.

The combination of high growth and tight limits creates a unique challenge. Texas cities are being asked to do more—with policing, fire protection, streets, parks, utilities, and emergency services—while having less flexibility to raise the revenues needed to deliver these services. The national report identifies a slowdown; Texas turns that slowdown into a structural strain.

II. Public Safety: The Dominant and Growing Budget Pressure

Public safety remains the largest and most rapidly expanding area of municipal spending nationwide. In the average U.S. city, it now accounts for over 60 percent of the general fund, up from 54 percent just two years earlier. This includes police, fire, and emergency medical services, all of which have seen rising personnel costs, higher call volumes, increased equipment prices, and greater public expectations.

Other services—such as recreation, parks, culture, libraries, and general government—occupy a much smaller share of the municipal budget. Cities often want to invest in these quality-of-life functions, but the dominant weight of public safety makes this increasingly difficult.

Texas Context: A Perfect Storm of Public Safety Costs

Texas amplifies this national trend. Major Texas cities such as Dallas, Houston, Austin, Fort Worth, and San Antonio routinely spend 60 to 70 percent of their general funds on public safety. Several factors drive this. First, rapid population growth leads to higher 911 call volumes and more complex service demands. Second, Texas has faced serious police recruitment challenges since 2020, prompting cities to increase wages, offer signing bonuses, and add incentives to remain competitive with suburban agencies. Third, hospitals in many Texas metro areas struggle with capacity issues, causing local Fire/EMS departments to handle more medical emergency calls—including mental health-related incidents—which increases staffing and overtime costs.

Taken together, public safety becomes both essential and unavoidable. But it also pushes cities into a corner, leaving less room for parks, street maintenance, libraries, community programs, and long-term capital upkeep. The national report identifies public safety as the dominant expense; in Texas, it is the defining budget reality.

III. Fiscal Confidence Declines

Municipal finance officers across the country report declining confidence. In the survey, 52 percent say they feel better able to meet FY2025 needs than in the prior year—a noticeable drop from previous surveys. Looking ahead to FY2026, only 45 percent express optimism, down sharply from the 64 percent optimism reported a year earlier.
2025-City-Fiscal-Conditions-Rep…

Cities cite inflation, workforce costs, capital needs, and public safety demands as the primary drivers of this sentiment. Inflation has raised the price of everything from asphalt to ambulances. Recruiting employees—particularly equipment operators, utility technicians, IT personnel, police officers, and firefighters—requires higher wages. And a backlog of infrastructure projects, many delayed during the pandemic, continues to grow in scope and cost.

Texas Context: Growth Without Elasticity

Texas cities experience each of these pressures but with added difficulty because their revenue systems are less flexible. A city such as Frisco, McKinney, or Leander may grow by 5–10 percent annually, bringing thousands of new residents who need water, police protection, parks, and roads. Yet the property tax cap prevents revenue from rising at the same pace unless voters approve a tax increase—a difficult political hurdle. Meanwhile, sales taxes can fluctuate unpredictably depending on regional retail activity.

The result is a mismatch: demand expands rapidly, but revenue cannot. The national report describes growing financial caution; Texas cities describe a tightening vise.

Texas Case Studies: How National Trends Become Texas Realities

These case studies are woven here to illustrate the national themes and show how Texas cities embody them with exceptional clarity and scale.

Case Study 1: Dallas

Dallas faces the full spectrum of pressures described in the report. Its infrastructure backlog—including streets, drainage systems, and public facilities—has grown as construction costs rise due to inflation and tariffs. Public safety spending consumes over 60 percent of the general fund, leaving limited room for parks, libraries, and cultural services. In addition, the city’s relationship with Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has placed new focus on cost allocation practices, as suburban cities question their share of contributions relative to the services they receive.

Taken together, Dallas demonstrates how the national transition from recovery to restraint becomes a difficult balancing act: maintaining essential services, planning long-term capital investments, and managing regional partnerships with limited financial headroom.

Case Study 2: Houston

Houston’s fiscal challenges reveal how structural issues magnify national trends. The city continues to manage large pension obligations for police, fire, and municipal employees—obligations that constrain budget flexibility. At the same time, Houston’s commercial tax base is unusually sensitive to office valuation cycles. Post-pandemic work changes have depressed office demand nationwide, and Houston, with one of the largest office markets in the country, is particularly vulnerable. Sales tax revenues also depend heavily on energy-sector cycles; when oil prices soften, household spending often does as well.

Houston illustrates the report’s warning that cities tied to volatile economic sectors face heightened revenue uncertainty during national fiscal cooling.

Case Study 3: Austin

Austin is one of the fastest-growing cities in the nation. Population growth brings economic strength, but it also drives up demand for water, roads, transit, and public safety faster than revenue can legally expand under Texas law. The city’s ambitious capital plans—including the long-term Project Connect transit system—are deeply affected by construction cost inflation and tariff-driven price increases. Meanwhile, Austin’s hiring environment requires competitive wages to attract talent in a city with a high cost of living.

Austin underscores one of the report’s central themes: rapid growth does not guarantee fiscal ease. In fact, growth can intensify financial pressure when infrastructure needs escalate faster than revenue authority.

Case Study 4: San Antonio

San Antonio has historically maintained one of the most stable fiscal profiles in Texas, but even its disciplined budget faces rising strain. Public safety consumes nearly two-thirds of the general fund, mirroring the national trend. Tourism-driven sales tax revenues softened as consumer habits returned to pre-pandemic patterns. As one of the most military- and federal-contract-dependent cities in the state, San Antonio must continuously monitor federal procurement and tax policy—including potential changes to the municipal bond tax exemption.

San Antonio demonstrates the report’s finding that even stable cities are preparing for leaner years ahead.

Case Study 5: Fort Worth

Fort Worth is the fastest-growing large city in America, and its infrastructure needs are enormous. New neighborhoods require water lines, fire stations, streets, schools, and parks. Inflation and tariffs have raised the cost of steel, heavy equipment, and construction services, making public works significantly more expensive. At the same time, the revenue cap restricts how quickly Fort Worth can scale up funding to match new demand. With sales taxes now flattening, a key engine of local revenue has slowed at exactly the moment the city needs it most.

Fort Worth illustrates the report’s broad conclusion: even cities with extraordinary growth cannot outpace the pressures of rising costs and declining federal support.

IV. Tariffs and Municipal Bond Policy: Watching for External Shocks

Nationally, cities report that tariffs are complicating procurement. Nearly half say tariffs have affected their ability to secure materials or equipment, and some describe major project delays. Tariffs raise the cost of steel, vehicles, water infrastructure components, public safety equipment, and construction materials. When these costs rise, cities often must delay projects, revise budgets, or seek alternative suppliers.

Cities are also closely watching federal discussions about the municipal bond tax exemption. Should the exemption be weakened, the cost of borrowing would rise sharply. Because cities rely heavily on debt to build long-lived infrastructure—roads, water systems, drainage, bridges—the financial impact would be significant.
2025-City-Fiscal-Conditions-Rep…

Texas Context: Higher Exposure

Texas cities—especially large, fast-growing metro areas—would be among the hardest hit by these changes. Their capital programs are enormous, covering everything from freeway interchanges and transit expansions to water treatment plants and flood control systems. If borrowing costs rise, Texas cities would be forced to trim projects, delay improvements, or seek new revenue sources in a system already marked by tight constraints.

V. Tax Sources and a Shifting Economic Base

The report highlights that property taxes are projected to grow modestly while sales taxes level off. Income taxes—where they exist—are expected to decline. Since property taxes lag real-time economic changes by one to three years, cities often experience fiscal conditions later than the private sector.
2025-City-Fiscal-Conditions-Rep…

Texas Context: High Volatility in a Sales-Heavy System

Texas cities, with no income tax option, are uniquely exposed to consumer spending shifts. When retail slows, so do city revenues. This exposure becomes even more pronounced when combined with declining commercial property valuations, which are emerging in major Texas metros as the office market softens. The state’s combination of cyclical industries, rapid development patterns, and legally restricted revenue capacity creates both opportunities and vulnerabilities that align closely with the national findings.

VI. The Broader Narrative: Resilience Through Adaptation

Across the nation, the report shows cities taking proactive steps to manage uncertainty. They are adjusting their budgets, building reserves, planning capital projects more cautiously, and monitoring federal policy developments. Many are exploring domestic supply alternatives, streamlining operations, and prioritizing essential services. The tone is neither pessimistic nor alarmist—it is grounded, realistic, and strategic.

Texas Context: Innovation as Necessity

Texas cities have long relied on creative financial tools to navigate their constrained revenue environment. These include Public Improvement Districts (PID), Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ), Municipal Management Districts (MMD), and Economic Development Corporations (EDC). These tools allow cities to capture value from growth and reinvest it into infrastructure, parks, roads, drainage, and redevelopment projects. Texas cities also maintain some of the strongest financial ratings in the nation due to disciplined reserve policies and long-term planning.

In other words, the very constraints that challenge Texas cities also push them to become some of the most innovative financial stewards in America.

VII. Conclusion: A New Era of Municipal Pragmatism

The City Fiscal Conditions 2025 report captures a decisive moment. Cities across the nation are transitioning from recovery to resilience—from a period defined by federal lifelines to one marked by local decision-making, capital discipline, and an unflinching look at long-term responsibilities. The post-pandemic boom has given way to a quieter, more demanding phase of municipal governance.

Texas cities exemplify this shift even more vividly. They face explosive growth, aging infrastructure, strict revenue constraints, and heavy public safety demands. Yet they continue to innovate and adapt, often serving as national models for fiscal management in high-growth environments.

As the report concludes, cities are not facing an imminent crisis—they are facing a long horizon of disciplined planning. The margin for error may be narrower than before, but the commitment to resilience, adaptability, and pragmatic leadership remains strong. Texas cities, with all their complexity and dynamism, reflect that spirit—and in many ways, illuminate the path forward for the rest of the country.