Tag: politics

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.

Key Aspects of School Funding in Texas

.Reading time 13 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

A Guide to How Schools Are Paid For, Why It Never Feels Like Enough, and the Big Debate Now at Texas’ Doorstep

Public education in Texas is both enormous and intimate. It is a system of more than 1,200 school districts serving nearly 5.5 million children. It is funded by formulas that even experienced administrators struggle to explain, yet it is felt every time a homeowner opens a property tax bill or a teacher receives a paycheck. It is rich in promise, strained by costs, and increasingly defined by political crosscurrents. Texas prides itself on flexibility, local control, and low taxes — but those values continually collide with the financial realities of running schools in a fast-growing, geographically massive state.

This essay maps the entire landscape of school funding in Texas: where the money comes from, how it is distributed, what the Legislature has changed in recent years, how vouchers and property-tax relief affect the system, and why Governor Greg Abbott has embraced the bold and controversial idea of eventually eliminating school property taxes altogether. Whether this vision becomes reality — and what shape the public-school system will take in the next decade — depends on understanding the architecture beneath it.

One truth stands out: Texas cannot fix teacher pay, student achievement, enrollment pressure, recapture, or facilities needs until it confronts the underlying structure of its finance system.

I. Constitutional Foundation: What Texas Promised

All school-funding debates begin with the Texas Constitution, Article VII, which requires the Legislature to establish and maintain an “efficient system of public free schools.” The courts have consistently interpreted “efficient” to mean:

  • equitable across districts
  • fundamentally adequate
  • not dependent on extreme disparities in local wealth

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Edgewood v. Kirby decisions transformed Texas school finance. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that wide disparities between wealthy and poor districts violated the Constitution. To remedy this, the Legislature created recapture, often called “Robin Hood,” a system requiring wealthy districts to send excess local revenue back to the state.

This constitutional framework — equity, adequacy, and local autonomy — continues to shape every reform today.

II. The Three Revenue Streams: Local, State, Federal

Texas school districts rely on three primary revenue sources, but they play very different roles.

1. Local Property Taxes

These are the backbone of school funding. Districts levy:

  • Maintenance & Operations (M&O) tax rates for salaries and day-to-day operations
  • Interest & Sinking (I&S) tax rates for debt on buildings

Local revenue varies dramatically depending on the strength of the tax base.

2. State Funding

State dollars are distributed through the Foundation School Program (FSP). The system uses:

  • a Basic Allotment (BA)
  • adjustments for special-population students via Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA)
  • transportation allotments, small district adjustments, and more

If a district cannot raise enough locally to meet its entitlement, the state fills the gap.

3. Federal Funds

These make up roughly 10 percent of district revenue, supporting:

  • Title I
  • IDEA special education
  • school nutrition programs
  • and other targeted mandates

These funds help but are not the backbone of Texas school finance.

III. How Texas Calculates Funding: Tier I and Tier II

Texas uses a tiered structure.

Tier I — The Foundation Program

This ensures a minimum educational program for every student through:

  • Basic Allotment × WADA
  • special-population weights
  • transportation
  • small/midsize adjustments

Tier II — Local Enrichment

Districts can raise additional M&O pennies called golden pennies and copper pennies.

  • Golden pennies: high yield, not subject to recapture
  • Copper pennies: lower yield, recaptured above wealth thresholds

Most enrichment beyond the compressed rate requires voter approval through a VATRE.

IV. Recapture: The Equalizer Few Love but Courts Demand

Recapture exists because property values vary wildly across Texas. Districts with high property wealth per WADA (often due to mineral values or commercial tax bases) generate far more revenue per penny than property-poor districts.

The formula is simple:

When local wealth per WADA exceeds the Equalized Wealth Level, the surplus must be recaptured.

It is politically controversial but constitutionally necessary.

Districts like Austin ISD — wealthy tax bases but high needs — often pay recapture amounts far larger than their own programmatic flexibility would prefer. Meanwhile, rural or urban property-poor districts rely heavily on these equalized dollars.

V. Texas in the National Landscape

Texas educates one of the largest student bodies in the nation yet consistently ranks in the lower third for per-pupil spending. Factors include:

  • rapid population growth
  • inflation decreasing the value of the Basic Allotment
  • aging facilities in older districts
  • special-education obligations that exceed state reimbursement

The teacher-retention crisis reflects these funding pressures directly.

VI. Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs)

The introduction of ESAs in 2025 marked a structural shift. These accounts divert state dollars to private education options. Crucially:

  • ESA dollars are removed before school-finance formulas operate
  • which reduces the total funding pool for public education
  • and increases the state’s long-term cost obligations

Supporters emphasize choice; critics highlight the impact on district resources.

VII. Tax Compression and Homestead Exemptions

Texas has repeatedly compressed school M&O tax rates — most dramatically in 2006 and again in 2019 under HB 3. Recent constitutional amendments increased homestead exemptions and compressed rates further.

This means:

  • homeowners feel relief
  • but the state must backfill more revenue
  • and state obligations grow exponentially over time

If the economy slows, the state may struggle to maintain these commitments.

VIII. Governor Abbott’s Proposal: Eliminate School Property Taxes

Governor Abbott has stated he wants Texas to eliminate school property taxes completely. This would shift the largest funding mechanism for public schools to:

  • sales taxes
  • consumption-based alternatives
  • growth revenue
  • or new statewide tax instruments

This raises critical questions:

  • How do we preserve local control?
  • How do we ensure equity across 1,200+ districts?
  • What happens in recessions?
  • How do ESAs interact with a fully state-funded system?

It is the most ambitious tax proposal in modern Texas history.

IX. Where Funding Pressures Are Felt Most

Teacher Pay

Texas trails the national average, especially in large urban districts.

Special Education

State funding does not cover true required costs; districts subsidize heavily.

Facilities

Older urban districts face major reinvestment needs, while fast-growth suburban districts must build rapidly.

Operational Costs

Inflation affects utilities, transportation, insurance, and program expenses.

Across Texas, educational needs are rising faster than revenue.

X. Adequacy and Equity in a Changing State

Texas is now more:

  • urban
  • suburban
  • economically diverse
  • demographically complex

than at any point in its history.

Equity concerns involve not just property wealth but:

  • disability status
  • rural decline
  • special-population needs
  • enrollment patterns

Ensuring adequacy will require updating the Basic Allotment and adjusting cost structures to reflect modern realities.

XI. What a Stable System Would Require

A modern, stable school finance system would include:

  • indexing the Basic Allotment to true local inflation (can be much higher than the national headline inflation!)
  • meaningful local discretion without destabilizing equity
  • predictable state funding even in downturns
  • sustainable integration of ESA costs
  • adequate support for special-population students
  • transparent outcomes and accountability

Without long-term structural reforms, Texas will continue to struggle with volatility.

XII. The Elephant in the Room

Every major issue — teacher pay, property taxes, recapture, ESAs, special education, enrollment shifts — all trace back to one fundamental question:

How does Texas choose to fund its schools?

Until the state updates this architecture for a 21st-century population, every subsequent debate will remain a patch on an aging foundation.

APPENDIX A — Key Definitions and Formula Explanations

Basic Allotment (BA): foundational per-student funding.
Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA): adjusts attendance for special-population weights.
M&O Tax Rate: used for daily operations.
I&S Tax Rate: used for bond repayment and facilities.
Tier I: baseline program funded by state and local revenue.
Tier II: enrichment funding through local discretion (golden and copper pennies).
Golden Pennies: high-yield pennies, free from recapture.
Copper Pennies: enrichment pennies subject to recapture.
Foundation School Program (FSP): state’s primary funding system.
Equalized Wealth Level (EWL): recapture threshold.
Recapture: excess local property wealth reclaimed by the state.
ESA: Education Savings Account for private schooling.
Tax Compression: state-mandated lowering of local M&O rates.

APPENDIX B — Major Historical Milestones in Texas School Finance

Late 1800s–1950s: Foundation of statewide public education; wide funding disparities.
1989–1995 (Edgewood era): Courts declare system unconstitutional; recapture created.
2006: HB 1 compresses tax rates after West Orange-Cove.
2019 (HB 3): Major reform expanding Tier II, adjusting weights, compressing M&O rates.
2023–2025: Homestead-tax changes; continued compression; ESAs approved; funding obligations expand.

APPENDIX C — Data Landscape & Current Funding Realities

Texas spends below the national average per pupil. Recapture exceeds $3 billion yearly.
Districts across Texas experience:

  • fast-growth facility pressures
  • rural staffing shortages
  • urban aging infrastructure
  • special education obligations beyond state reimbursement
  • recapture obligations that limit program flexibility

Teacher turnover is high, especially in high-need districts.

Despite GDP strength, education funding levels struggle to keep pace with demographic realities.

APPENDIX D — Policy Options, Trade-Offs, and Pathways Forward

1. Index the Basic Allotment to inflation

Maintains purchasing power and stabilizes district operations.

2. Reform recapture but preserve equity

Consider raising EWL thresholds or adjusting guaranteed yields
while still ensuring a constitutionally “efficient” system.

3. Provide recession-proof state support

Create rainy-day triggers that stabilize district budgets during economic downturns.

4. Integrate ESAs into long-term fiscal planning

Ensure private-education subsidies do not undermine district stability or local control.

5. Support special-population students adequately

Reevaluate weights for bilingual, special education, and compensatory education.

6. Rebalance state–local responsibility

Clarify long-term commitments given rapid local tax-base shifts.

7. Increase transparency and public accountability

Build trust in allocation decisions and avoid opaque formula adjustments.

APPENDIX E — Top 100 Districts Paying Recapture Amounts.

Rethinking Disaster Relief in America

.Reading time 17 minutes.

Why States Can Absorb More—and Why the Federal Government Should Become a True Backstop

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Introduction

For decades, disaster relief in America has operated under a familiar assumption: states cannot reliably handle the financial shock of natural disasters, so the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must stand ready as the first and primary payer whenever storms, fires, floods, or earthquakes strike. This model dates back to 1979, when President Jimmy Carter created FEMA to consolidate civil defense and disaster-response functions into a single federal agency. After the attacks of September 11th, FEMA was folded into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, broadening its responsibilities and cementing its role as the nation’s manager of both large and routine emergencies.

Yet the fiscal and operational landscape has changed sharply since those foundational decisions. States today maintain much stronger budgets, far deeper rainy-day reserves, more diversified revenue sources, and more mature emergency-management agencies than they had in the late twentieth century. Meanwhile, FEMA itself has grown increasingly bureaucratic, with administrative costs rising from around 9 percent of disaster spending in the early 1990s to roughly 18 percent between 1989 and 2011, and often exceeding its own internal cost targets. The agency has become indispensable in catastrophic cases but inefficient and slow in everyday ones.

This white paper examines whether FEMA must continue to function as a first-dollar payer, or whether a more modern system would assign routine responsibilities to states and reserve federal involvement for extreme, budget-threatening disasters. What emerges is a surprising conclusion backed by hard data: most states can, in fact, absorb the disaster costs FEMA typically covers, which ranged from 0.41 percent to 5.58 percent of state spending in the 2022–2024 period, with a national average of 1.19 percent. At the same time, states have median rainy-day reserves equal to 13–14 percent of their general-fund spending, and many maintain reserves far larger than that.

The implication is profound. FEMA is essential for rare catastrophic events—but its role as the payer of routine disaster bills imposes high overhead and creates slow, inefficient recovery cycles. This paper lays out a new model in which states pay their own ordinary disaster costs up to a clear percentage of their budgets, and the federal government becomes a streamlined, formula-driven backstop above that threshold. The goal is to reduce federal bureaucracy, preserve national capacity for massive events, and match responsibilities to the actual fiscal capabilities of states today.

I. FEMA’s Role and the Growth of Federal Disaster Spending

When FEMA was created in 1979, the federal government consolidated more than 100 disparate disaster- and civil-defense programs. Its newer home in the Department of Homeland Security expanded its remit, placing it at the center of national preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. Through its Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), FEMA has spent approximately $347 billion (in 2022 dollars) over the past three decades, with more than half of that total coming after 2005 as disasters increased in frequency and severity.

Despite the DRF’s historic role in major recovery efforts—Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, and Maria being among the most notable—the agency has become known for slow reimbursements, multi-year project closeouts, and a documentation system so complex that many counties wait months or even years to recover funds already expended. A single North Carolina county spent more on debris removal after Hurricane Helene than its entire annual budget and waited over a year without full reimbursement, a pattern familiar to many local governments.

Yet reliance on FEMA is not uniform across the country. Some states receive enormous federal aid in catastrophic years; others receive relatively little even across multiple years. It is only by understanding this distribution that a reformed model can be imagined.

II. How Dependent Are States on FEMA? Quantifying the Financial Exposure

The best picture of ongoing reliance comes from the 2022–2024 FEMA obligations dataset, which compared how much FEMA spent in each state to that state’s total expenditures. The findings provide a clear map of how deeply—or how little—states depend on the agency in routine years.

A. National Average

Across all fifty states, FEMA obligations equaled only 1.19 percent of total state spending. This means that for the average state, FEMA’s typical-year disaster role is fiscally small—a burden that could, in principle, be absorbed using normal budget tools without major restructuring.

B. Most FEMA-dependent states (recent years)

Though the national average is small, some states exhibit higher FEMA reliance:

  • Louisiana: 5.58% of total state spending
  • Florida: 4.39%
  • Montana: 3.91%
  • New York: 2.44%
  • Vermont: 2.14%
  • Virginia: 1.72%
  • Alaska: 1.71%
  • Rhode Island: 1.70%
  • Hawaii: 1.60%
  • Colorado: 1.58%

Importantly, even in these “higher exposure” states, the FEMA share of total expenditures remains well below the rainy-day reserves most states currently hold.

C. Least FEMA-dependent states

At the other end:

  • Nevada: 0.41% of state spending
  • Wyoming: 0.48%
  • Oklahoma: 0.58%

For these states, FEMA’s role is nearly negligible as a share of governmental revenue.

D. The catastrophic-year exception

These routine-year percentages mask an important truth: when disasters like Katrina or major multi-storm years hit, federal aid can reach staggering proportions. Pew’s long-term analysis showed that Louisiana’s federal disaster aid approached 19 percent of its general-fund spending in one extreme year. Such rare events are the moments where federal backstop capacity is crucial.

The real message in the data is this: states can handle the predictable; they cannot self-insure the catastrophic.

III. States’ Rainy-Day Funds: A Strong Foundation for a New Model

As federal disaster costs have grown, so too has state fiscal strength. Over the last decade, state rainy-day funds—formally called Budget Stabilization Funds—have reached historic highs.

  • Total U.S. state rainy-day funds (FY 2024): $158 billion
  • Total general-fund spending (FY 2024): $1.29 trillion
  • Median rainy-day balance: ~13–14 percent of general-fund expenditures
  • Some states far exceed that median:
    • Texas holds reserves equal to ~18 percent of annual general-fund spending.
    • Wyoming holds reserves equal to nearly 70 percent.
    • California’s reserve system in 2022 accounted for nearly half of all rainy-day dollars nationwide.

These figures dwarf the routine-year FEMA exposure numbers. For example, Florida’s FEMA dependence at 4.39 percent of spending is overshadowed by its double-digit rainy-day reserves. Montana’s 3.91 percent figure fits comfortably against the national 13–14 percent median. Even Louisiana, at 5.58 percent, can theoretically cover such costs with existing reserves in a typical year.

This means that the primary fiscal justification for FEMA as a first-dollar payer has largely evaporated; states now have mature financial defenses that simply did not exist decades ago.

IV. FEMA’s Bureaucracy Cost: The Inefficient Load-Bearing Wall

The financial problem with FEMA is not simply the cost of disaster payments—it is the cost of administering them. GAO’s multi-decade analyses show a clear historical trend:

  • In the early 1990s, FEMA’s administrative costs averaged about 9 percent of disaster spending.
  • From 1989 to 2011, the average nearly doubled to around 18 percent.
  • Many small- and medium-scale disasters exceeded FEMA’s own internal administrative-cost targets—which ranged from 8 percent to 20 percent depending on disaster size.

These numbers mean that for every $1 billion in disaster assistance, taxpayers may be funding $120 million to $180 million in federal overhead.

This inefficiency is not due solely to waste; it is structural. The current FEMA reimbursement system:

  • requires extensive documentation for thousands of separate projects;
  • demands eligibility reviews, re-reviews, appeals, closeouts, and audits;
  • relies on multi-year case management;
  • burdens counties that must front millions of dollars;
  • often requires several rounds of resubmission for small technical errors.

The system is built for granular reimbursement, not for speed, clarity, or administrative efficiency.

Any serious reform must begin with this reality: FEMA’s overhead is too high for routine work but entirely justified for rare catastrophic events.

V. A New Structure: State-First Responsibility with a Federal Safety Net Above a Threshold

The empirical question—whether states can absorb FEMA’s typical yearly costs—has been answered by the data: yes, they can. What states cannot absorb are the extreme, once-in-a-generation events that create fiscal shocks exceeding 10–20 percent of a budget year.

A modernized system should reflect this difference.

A. States handle their own disaster costs up to a fixed percentage of their budget

A clear and uniform rule could be adopted nationwide:

A state must cover disaster-related costs up to 3 percent of its prior-year general-fund expenditures before federal aid begins.

This threshold is intentionally set:

  • above the national FEMA-reliance average (1.19%);
  • above most moderate-exposure states’ reliance;
  • below the high-exposure states’ routine-year experience (3.91–5.58%);
  • and well within median rainy-day capacity.

This requirement is neither punitive nor unrealistic. It simply aligns responsibility with the fiscal strength states have already built.

B. States rely on rainy-day reserves and disaster accounts first

States already use a mix of rainy-day funds, disaster funds, supplemental appropriations, and budget flexibility to manage emergencies. In a reformed model, these existing tools would be applied in a structured, predictable sequence—not in political improvisation after the fact.

C. The federal government acts only as a high-threshold backstop

Once a state’s disaster costs exceed the 3 percent trigger, the federal government intervenes. For truly catastrophic years—costs exceeding 10 or 15 percent of state general-fund spending—the federal share could increase to 90 or even 95 percent.

This preserves national solidarity for the events no state can manage alone, while eliminating unnecessary federal entanglement in predictable, lower-level disasters.

D. Federal overhead is reduced dramatically

Under the backstop model, the federal government would only process a small number of large, formula-based payments rather than tens of thousands of reimbursement claims. This change alone could reduce federal overhead from the current 13–18 percent range to 3–5 percent, freeing substantial tax dollars for actual recovery work.

VI. Why a State-First, Federal-Backstop Model Is the Right Path Forward

A system in which states handle ordinary disasters and the federal government protects against the extraordinary aligns perfectly with the fiscal and operational realities of the 2020s.

For states, this model restores autonomy and incentivizes better land-use planning, improved mitigation, and more responsible financial preparation. It also removes the long bureaucratic delays associated with FEMA reimbursements, which often burden local governments more than the disasters themselves.

For the federal government, the model offers clarity and efficiency. Instead of struggling to administer thousands of granular projects—including small-dollar repairs that should never have been federalized—the national government can focus its resources on high-impact events, surge capacity, interstate coordination, and macro-level resilience.

For taxpayers, the new model promises a better mix of value and protection. Money that once funded administrative overhead can instead flow to recovery. At the same time, Americans maintain confidence that when the unimaginable occurs—a Katrina, a California megaquake, a Category 5 storm impacting two states simultaneously—the nation remains ready.

Conclusion

The debate around eliminating FEMA has often been framed as a choice between total federal withdrawal and the continuation of an increasingly bureaucratic status quo. The data, however, points to a more balanced and responsible path. Most states rely on FEMA for only 1 to 2 percent of their total spending in typical disaster years. Even the states with higher exposure—Louisiana at 5.58 percent, Florida at 4.39 percent, and Montana at 3.91 percent—retain rainy-day reserves far larger than these amounts. With median rainy-day balances now reaching 13 to 14 percent of general-fund spending, the financial capacity to absorb routine disaster costs already exists at the state level.

At the same time, the extreme years—the years where total federal disaster aid climbs into double digits as a share of a state’s budget—prove unequivocally that a national safety net remains essential. No state can self-fund a shock approaching one-fifth of its general fund, as Louisiana once experienced. In those moments, the federal government must still be the guardian of last resort.

The most effective reform lies in between: eliminate FEMA’s role as the payer of first resort and reshape the federal role into a streamlined backstop triggered only when a state’s disaster costs exceed a fixed percentage of its budget—3 percent being the most logical threshold. This shift would dramatically reduce federal overhead, accelerate recovery timelines, clarify responsibilities, reward mitigation, and ensure that the nation’s full strength remains available when true catastrophe strikes.

In short, the future of American disaster management should not be FEMA everywhere or FEMA nowhere. It should be FEMA where it matters most, and a state-first model where it does not. This approach honors both fiscal responsibility and national solidarity, and it reflects the actual capabilities of states today—capabilities strong enough to shoulder their own burdens, and a nation still strong enough to stand with them when those burdens become too great.

The One-Page Fix That Costs a Thousand Pages to Execute:

.Reading time 14 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Why Good Intentions Make Bad Laws When Enforcement Is an Afterthought

Every society faces moments of shock: a fire that traps a family behind burglar bars, a child injured by a defective product, a tragedy on a highway that could have been prevented. In the aftermath, the public demands that leaders take action. Elected officials, caught between moral responsibility and political pressure, reach for the fastest tool available — a new law. Something must be done. And too often, that “something” becomes a one-page ordinance drafted in the heat of the moment, written more out of outrage than out of careful design.

The universal political problem is not that lawmakers lack compassion or sincerity. The problem is the widespread illusion that a simple rule on paper automatically translates into a solution in real life. The moment we shift from the writing of a law to the carrying out of it, the entire landscape changes. Costs appear. Complexity expands. Enforcement becomes slow, difficult, and expensive. The people whom the rule was meant to protect often end up carrying financial or administrative burdens that no one anticipated. And the government itself becomes vulnerable when it fails to follow through.

The Fire, the Burglar Bars, and the One-Page Rule

A tragic fire in a home offers a perfect example. Smoke fills a hallway, flames rise, and a family cannot escape because the house has fixed burglar bars welded into place decades earlier. The heartbreak is immediate and raw. City leaders respond swiftly. Within days, a simple new ordinance is passed requiring that all burglar bars have an interior quick-release mechanism. The rule is one sentence long. It seems humane, obvious, and urgent.

But the unseen consequences emerge almost immediately. Many older homes have bars so firmly welded that retrofitting them requires grinding, re-cropping, and re-anchoring — a major metalworking project that costs far more than homeowners expect. Thousands of residences suddenly need professional work, and installation prices spike because demand overwhelms supply. Inspectors who were already stretched thin must now visit property after property, unsure whether they should enforce the rule retroactively, gradually, or with some form of grace period. Elderly residents, fixed-income families, and absentee landlords all face the same problem: they cannot comply quickly, and in many cases, they cannot afford to comply at all.

What began as a compassionate one-page fix turns into a months- or years-long administrative and enforcement burden. The good intention remains, but the machinery required to turn that intention into reality simply was not considered.

And this same pattern repeats itself in city halls across the country.

Other Cases Where a Simple Rule Created Complex Enforcement

Consider smoke detector mandates, which often follow a fatal fire. The ordinance usually states that all homes must have working smoke detectors in certain locations. It sounds like a straightforward safety measure. But in older houses without existing wiring, even a basic battery-powered unit may not be enough to meet the fire code. Landlords must retrofit dozens of apartments at their own expense, often discovering that chirping detectors lead tenants to remove the batteries, leaving the owner liable. Inspectors, already responsible for restaurant checks, rental registrations, and fire lane reviews, suddenly face a tripled workload just to verify compliance. A rule that looked effortless on paper becomes a citywide logistical challenge.

A similar situation arises with ADA-compliant handicap parking spaces at older businesses. A short ordinance may require every business to provide at least one properly sized and striped space. On paper, it is a hallmark of accessibility and fairness. But many small storefronts built decades ago have parking lots too narrow to meet the required dimensions without removing all other usable parking. Simple striping becomes an expensive project involving repaving, regrading, and reconfiguring the entire lot. Small business owners, already struggling with rent and utilities, find themselves facing thousands of dollars in unplanned costs. The city, meanwhile, must process waves of variance requests, appeals, and inspections — none of which were contemplated in the original vote.

Short-term rental regulations — the Airbnbs and VRBOs of the world — also illustrate this point well. Cities often pass two-page ordinances requiring hosts to register, meet safety standards, and pay a modest fee. But enforcement becomes a technological and legal minefield. Identifying unregistered properties requires ongoing web-scraping, sophisticated tracking tools, and interdepartmental coordination. Noise complaints surge. Neighborhoods push back. Large corporate rental companies hire attorneys to challenge citations. What seemed like a simple licensing rule becomes a multi-year enforcement project that consumes far more staff time than anticipated.

Plastic bag bans follow the same pattern. A half-page ordinance prohibits thin plastic bags at retail counters. It appears clean and elegant. But stores quickly switch to thicker bags that still count as plastic, just technically meet the law. Small retailers struggle with the cost of paper or reusable bags. Inspectors must decide which kinds of plastic sleeves, produce bags, and delivery packaging are exempt — a process that often requires issuing clarifying memos and amendments. A symbolic environmental gesture becomes a regulatory tangle.

Even texting-while-driving laws, which seem universally logical, reveal the same problem. Officers must determine whether a driver was texting, dialing, using GPS, or simply holding the phone. Proving intent becomes a courtroom battle. Defense attorneys argue privacy issues, argue that GPS use is protected, or claim the driver was simply moving the phone out of the sun. The law, though well-intentioned, is far easier to write than to enforce fairly.

Fire sprinkler retrofit mandates in older apartment complexes are another classic case. After a tragic fire, a city requires that all older buildings install sprinklers. But the cost per unit can run between six and ten thousand dollars, a financial shock that owners cannot absorb without raising rent sharply or closing the property. Inspectors cannot keep up with the inspections, owners beg for extensions, and cities often quietly delay or soften the rule because the housing market cannot handle the immediate impact. Again, the intent is noble; the implementation is overwhelming.

Even drought-triggered lawn-watering restrictions illustrate the same dynamic. A simple rule allows watering only on certain days. But enforcing the rule requires inspectors driving around at dawn or dusk, when sprinklers actually run. Complex irrigation systems malfunction. Elderly residents forget their watering day and unintentionally violate the rule. Neighbors call code enforcement on each other. What seems like a routine drought-management law turns into a delicate exercise in neighborhood diplomacy and enforcement discretion.

The Biggest Cost of All: When the City Gets Sued for Not Enforcing Its Own Laws

Beyond installation costs, administrative burdens, and inspector workloads lies an even greater consequence — one so significant that cities often hesitate to speak of it openly. When a city passes a law and then fails to monitor or enforce it, the government can find itself in the middle of lawsuits alleging negligence, indifference, or failure to uphold its own safety standards.

Courts sometimes treat a safety ordinance as a kind of promise. When a city requires smoke detectors, quick-release bars, ADA access, sprinkler systems, or short-term rental safety checks, it creates a public expectation that these rules will not merely exist on paper but will be enforced. When tragedy occurs — a fire in a unit the city never inspected, a crime at a short-term rental the city never registered, an accident in a business that never complied with parking mandates — attorneys do not hesitate to include the city in the lawsuit.

The legal cost of defending these cases can dwarf the cost of implementing the rule in the first place. Years of depositions, expert testimony, and appeals drain city budgets. Settlements are quietly negotiated because the cost of fighting is even higher. And the political consequences are severe. Newspaper headlines do not say, “City Struggled With Limited Staff Resources.” They say, “City Failed to Enforce Safety Law Before Deadly Fire.” Even when enforcement lapses are rooted in budget constraints or administrative overload, the public sees only that the city wrote a rule it did not uphold.

This is the deepest irony: the cost of not enforcing an ordinance can be higher — sometimes exponentially higher — than the cost of enforcing it.

Why Governments Keep Repeating This Mistake

This dynamic repeats itself across time and geography. The reason is simple. Writing a law is fast; enforcing it is slow. Writing a law is cheap; enforcing it is expensive. Writing a law is politically satisfying; enforcing a law is administratively difficult. And writing a law happens at the height of emotion, when a tragedy is fresh and the public clamors for action, whereas enforcement occurs quietly, day after day, long after public attention has moved on.

Legislators legislate. Administrators administer. Budgets lag. And the machinery required to implement a rule rarely matches the emotion that produced it. The one-page fix becomes a long-term burden, often borne by people who were never considered in the original debate.

What Good Governance Would Require

A better, healthier way of governing would pair every urgent rule with a sober and realistic analysis of what it will take to make that rule real. That means identifying who will carry out the inspections, how long the work will take, what it will cost residents and businesses, how the city will fund the enforcement, how exceptions will be handled, and how the rule will be revisited after the initial surge of compliance. Good policy demands a slower, steadier rhythm than the rapid political impulse that produces these one-page solutions. It requires clarity, patience, and a willingness to acknowledge complexity.

The Universal Lesson

Whether the issue is burglar bars, smoke detectors, ADA parking, short-term rentals, sprinkler systems, plastic bags, or drought-time watering schedules, the pattern is the same. The simpler the law looks on paper, the more complicated it becomes in the real world. The true work of government is not the drafting of a sentence but the building of the machinery behind that sentence.

Until policymakers take the time to consider the cost, the complexity, the staff workload, and the legal exposure that follow every new ordinance, we will continue to pass rules that feel good in the moment yet falter when confronted with the realities of implementation. A tragedy may demand action, but action must be grounded in humility — the humility to recognize that real-world solutions require more than good intentions. They require the discipline to think through the entire life cycle of a law, from its birth in crisis to its long-term enforcement in the quiet, everyday life of a city.

When a Reopening Bill Isn’t Really a Reopening Bill (Updated Nov 10th)

.Reading time 11 minutes.

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

I. The Headlines vs. the Fine Print

When the Shutdown Fairness Act (S. 3012) first appeared on news tickers, it sounded like the long-awaited solution to the nation’s longest government shutdown on record. “Senate Moves to Restore Federal Pay,” the headlines proclaimed, and for a moment, optimism broke through weeks of gridlock. Markets climbed, pundits nodded, and weary federal employees allowed themselves a cautious breath of hope.

But headlines have a way of simplifying what the legislative text complicates. Once the fine print emerged, it became clear: this bill didn’t reopen the government — it merely papered over the pain.

II. What the Bill Actually Does

The Shutdown Fairness Act, introduced in October 2025, provides appropriations for pay and allowances of “excepted employees” — those federal workers already required to report to duty during a lapse in funding (TSA agents, border patrol, air traffic controllers, etc.).

It also extends coverage to certain contractors who directly support those workers, a gesture meant to include the unseen workforce that keeps critical operations running during crises. On paper, that’s progress. But beneath that headline, several key limitations emerge:

  1. It doesn’t fund the government. Agencies remain closed, programs remain suspended, and the rest of the workforce remains furloughed.
  2. It transfers discretion to executive branch appointees — the bill empowers each agency head to determine who qualifies as “excepted,” effectively giving the President sweeping authority to decide who gets paid and who doesn’t.
  3. It blurs accountability. By easing the pressure on both parties while keeping the government officially shut, the bill risks normalizing shutdowns as a recurring political tactic rather than a national emergency.

In short, it treats the symptoms without curing the disease.

III. The Politics Behind the Vote

On November 8, 2025, the Senate voted 53 to 43 to advance the bill — seven votes short of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster.

Republicans uniformly supported it, framing the legislation as an act of compassion for unpaid federal workers. Democrats, however, largely opposed it, citing both structural and ethical concerns. They argued that the bill gave too much unilateral power to the executive branch and failed to address the broader shutdown itself.

Still, a few cracks appeared in the Democratic wall.

  • John Fetterman (D-PA), who had already sided with Republicans in calling for a “clean reopening,” stayed consistent with his prior votes.
  • Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff (both D-GA) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) broke ranks for the first time, voting yes. Their explanation: the prolonged hardship on federal workers and contractors in their states had become intolerable.

These defections didn’t change the outcome, but they did change the temperature. For the first time in over a month, the Senate’s political map showed visible strain.

IV. Why the Bill Fell Short

The problem wasn’t the intention; it was the architecture.

While restoring pay for “excepted employees” sounds reasonable, the bill’s narrow scope meant that most of the government would remain frozen. Museums would stay dark. Grant reviews would stay paused. Routine operations — from the EPA to housing vouchers — would stay idle.

Worse, by selectively paying some workers, the bill threatened to dull the political urgency that historically forces compromise. If the pain of a shutdown is eased but not ended, there’s less incentive for lawmakers to fix the underlying appropriations impasse. In effect, it could have turned a temporary failure into a tolerable new normal.

That’s why Democrats — even many moderate ones — balked. Supporting the bill might have looked compassionate, but it risked legitimizing shutdowns as a viable governing tool.

V. The Market Misread

Wall Street, as usual, traded first and read later.

Stock futures jumped after headlines announced “Senate Votes to Restore Federal Pay.” The S&P 500 futures rose about 0.5%, the Nasdaq 0.7%, and the Dow about 135 points — all on the hope that this meant a full reopening was near.

But the fine print cooled that optimism. Analysts realized the Shutdown Fairness Act wasn’t a reopening bill at all; it was a partial relief measure. By Sunday evening, futures flattened, and analysts described the move as “hope without foundation.”

Markets crave certainty, not theater — and the Senate had offered more of the latter than the former.

VI. What This Reveals About Governance

The deeper story isn’t just about one bill. It’s about how governing by crisis has become the new normal. Each year, shutdowns are handled less like emergencies and more like bargaining tools. And each time Congress tries to mitigate their effects without fixing their cause, the precedent hardens.

The Shutdown Fairness Act offered temporary fairness — but at the cost of long-term accountability. It tried to make a shutdown less painful instead of making one less possible.

VII. A Final Thought

Sometimes the measure of good governance is not what’s easy to pass, but what’s honest to reject. Senators who voted no weren’t denying workers their pay; they were resisting a bill that risked institutionalizing dysfunction.

The Shutdown Fairness Act was born of good intentions and bad timing. It addressed hunger without restoring work, anxiety without restoring trust.

The government doesn’t need another half-measure; it needs a full reopening and a return to the quiet, unglamorous work of budgeting like adults. Until then, the shutdown may end, but the crisis of governance continues.

Appendix: A Realistic but Positive Scenario for Full Reopening

If this standoff ultimately leads to a genuine reopening, the most realistic yet hopeful path looks something like this:

1. A Face-Saving Compromise That Works

Both sides inch toward a short-term continuing resolution (45–60 days) to reopen government fully. Republicans agree to move the health-insurance subsidy debate to a separate track, while Democrats accept temporary funding without policy riders. Each side can claim victory: Republicans restore normal operations; Democrats protect core programs.

2. Confidence and Functionality Return

  • Federal employees get their paychecks and dignity back.
  • Markets rebound as predictability returns.
  • Public sentiment steadies as Washington finally behaves like Washington used to — imperfect but functional.

3. Structural Reform Momentum

In the aftermath, moderates on both sides revive shutdown-prevention proposals:

  • Automatic continuing resolutions to prevent future lapses.
  • No budget, no pay for lawmakers who fail to act.
  • Transparency rules requiring agencies to publish contingency plans.

These modest but meaningful steps make shutdowns rarer and shorter.

4. Economic Recovery and Civic Reset

As contracts resume and delayed data flows again, the economy catches its breath. Federal projects restart, local grants flow, and household spending normalizes.
The political temperature cools just enough for leaders to reconsider governing as service rather than spectacle.

5. The Quiet Victory

A reopened government, a calmer public, and a Congress reminded of its duty — that’s the attainable, not utopian, win.

The crisis will have hurt, but it will also have humbled.

If lawmakers learn from it, the Shutdown Fairness Act might ultimately be remembered not for what it failed to do, but for what it forced others to finally fix.

Update — November 10, 2025

In the days since this essay was written, the Senate advanced a continuing resolution (CR) by a 60–40 vote — the first credible step toward ending the historic shutdown. The measure would fund the government through January 30, 2026, while granting full-year appropriations for a few essential agencies such as Veterans Affairs and Agriculture. In return, Republicans agreed to schedule a separate December vote on extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies — the core Democratic demand that helped trigger the impasse in the first place.

For now, this deal signals relief: agencies could reopen, workers could return, and markets have already priced in a modest rebound. But it’s still a temporary armistice, not a peace treaty. The same structural fragilities remain — partisan brinkmanship, dependence on continuing resolutions, and a budgeting system that governs by countdown clock.

If the CR passes both chambers and is signed, the lights will come back on in Washington — but they may flicker again soon. By early 2026, Congress will once more face another funding cliff, another negotiation, and another test of will.

In other words, this crisis may be ending — but the next one is already on the calendar.