Following the Chain

By AFK
First edition, October 26, 2026

What this is

Every policy causes reactions, and those reactions cause more. Before an idea went into the framework, we tried to follow that chain. How would people and businesses likely respond? How could it be gamed? Who could fall through the cracks? What would we watch to know if it's working? These are our notes from doing that. They shaped the proposals in the main document, and we kept them here so the main document stays readable.

Each chain is laid out the same way:

• The idea: what we'd do and why.
• First reaction: how people, businesses and governments would likely respond at first.
• What could happen next: the knock-on effects, including ways the idea could be gamed or backfire, and how we'd handle each one.
• What we'd watch: the measures that tell us if it's working.
• When we'd rethink it: the warning sign, and what we'd check before changing anything. A bad number can have more than one cause, so we try to say what evidence would tell them apart.

The chain never really ends. These notes should change as real results come in. Sections are numbered to match the commitments.

How it connects. This is a companion to A Way Forward, Together. Each commitment is laid out in the commitments in full, numbered the same way as the chains here. The chains reason through those proposals. They're our best thinking, not proof, and the sizes and effects still need to be measured once each idea is tried. Healthcare for Everyone has the full health design that the chains in section 4 test. Paying for it has what everything costs, how each source of money works and the rule that keeps the plan honest. Where a chain gives a number, Paying for it has the current figure.

1. Honest conversation and shared wisdom

Following the chain: a voluntary paid service year

• The idea: Offer young adults a paid year of service on teams that mix regions and backgrounds. At the end they'd get a bonus, like tuition help or a down payment on a first home.
• First reaction: Many young people sign up, especially those who aren't sure about college. Real work gets done. People who would never have met end up working side by side.
• What could happen next:
  • Who joins: If the pay is low, only people who can afford it join, and the mixing fails. The pay has to be a living wage.
  • Replacing paid workers: Agencies may use service members as cheap labor instead of hiring. Service roles have to add to existing jobs, not replace them.
  • Politics creeping in: Any program for young people will be accused of indoctrination. Keep it to skills and service, and ask how it would look if the other side ran it.
  • Make-work: If the projects are pointless, word spreads fast. Fund projects with results people can see and measure.
• What we'd watch: Who signs up, by region, income and politics. How many finish. What work gets done. And whether people who served say they trust people unlike them more.

The other ideas in this section

• Teach thinking, not sides
  • The idea: Build source-checking, basic statistics, spotting manipulation and "argue the other side" exercises into subjects schools already teach, like English, history, science and math. We wouldn't add a new class. Most adults now get news from feeds that reward whatever gets a reaction, and very few of us were ever taught to check a claim before sharing it. In Stanford's 2019 study of 3,446 high school students, two-thirds couldn't tell a news story from an ad dressed up as one. Libraries and community colleges would offer the same skills to adults for free.
  • First reaction: Teachers who already do this welcome the help. Others worry about one more thing crammed into a full day. Some parents on both sides suspect a back door for politics, because "media literacy" has sometimes meant teaching kids which outlets to trust.
  • What could happen next:
    • Drifting into telling kids what to think: Publish every lesson. Use examples of false or misleading claims from every direction, so a parent of any politics can look and see it's fair. Exercises check the method (where did this come from, what's the evidence) and never the conclusion.
    • Squeezed out by tested subjects: Anything that isn't tested tends to disappear. Building it into reading and math keeps it alive without taking time from the basics. Reading a graph honestly in math, or comparing two accounts of an event in history, are good examples.
    • Teachers who weren't trained either: Short, paid summer training and ready-made lesson kits will do more than a mandate.
  • What we'd watch: Students' scores on simple public tests of spotting a false claim or a misleading chart, before and after. Parent complaints, sorted by topic and by which side complained. And how many districts actually use the materials.
  • When we'd rethink it: If complaints come mostly from one side, we'd send the flagged lessons to a panel of teachers and parents with different politics. Complaints alone can't prove bias, since one side may just be more organized or more worried. The panel decides whether the examples need rebalancing. If scores don't improve after two years, the lessons aren't working. Redesign them before expanding them.
• Bring people into the same room
  • The idea: Fund local citizens' assemblies. A random, representative group of residents is paid for its time. They hear from experts on all sides of a real local question, like a new road, a school budget or a zoning fight. They talk it through over several sessions and make written recommendations. Random selection matters. The people who show up to ordinary public meetings are mostly the same small group of the most motivated and the most upset. Ireland used assemblies like these to break deadlocks its Parliament had avoided for decades.
  • First reaction: Towns try a few. People who get picked are often surprised and glad to be asked. Organized interest groups and regular meeting-goers try to shape the expert lineup or take over the process.
  • What could happen next:
    • Talk with no effect: If officials ignore the results, people decide it was theater and stop saying yes. So the elected body should have to answer each recommendation in writing within a set time, saying what it will do and why or why not.
    • Insiders taking over: An independent organizer picks the experts, not the city council. People on different sides of the question agree on the mix.
    • Only the comfortable say yes: Without pay, childcare and evening sessions, the "random" group ends up mostly retired and well-off. Paying people for their time is what makes it representative.
  • What we'd watch: How many people accept the invitation, by age, income and politics. How many recommendations get adopted. And whether people's trust in local government and in each other changes afterward.
  • When we'd rethink it: If fewer than about a third of recommendations get a real response, or the people who say yes don't look like the town, fix the design before putting more money in.
• Start with common ground, then take on the hard topics
  • The idea: Every forum, class and community conversation starts where people already agree, like safe streets, good schools, fair prices and fixing what's broken. Harder subjects come after people have built some trust. That's what mediators who run cross-partisan dialogue keep finding. People are far more willing to hear a hard argument from someone they've already worked with.
  • First reaction: Early sessions feel easy and friendly. People who expected a fight are relieved, and turnout holds.
  • What could happen next:
    • Looks like dodging the real fights: Some people, especially those who care most about a contested issue, may decide it's all small talk and leave. So publish the path from the start. Say which hard topics come next and roughly when, so nobody thinks they're being avoided.
    • Groups that never move on: Staying comfortable is tempting. Set a date or a number of sessions for each step.
    • Moderators in over their heads: Hard topics need skilled moderators who can keep a conversation honest without it turning into a fight. Train them and pay them.
  • What we'd watch: Whether groups stick together once the hard topics arrive. And whether people say they understand the other side's reasons better.
  • When we'd rethink it: If groups keep falling apart at the first hard topic, ask the people who left why. It could be too little trust built early, weak moderation, a topic raised too soon, or just scheduling and burnout. Exit surveys, and comparing groups with different moderators, can tell these apart before we change the design.
• Pass the wisdom on
  • The idea: Paid mentorships, apprenticeships and skills exchanges that pair retirees and experienced workers with young people. They'd run through libraries, schools, community colleges and union halls. More than 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day. Many take decades of hands-on know-how with them, in trades, farming, firefighting and small business. Meanwhile employers say they can't find people with those skills.
  • First reaction: Lots of retirees are glad to be asked and sign up. Employers like that it lowers what they spend on training.
  • What could happen next:
    • Mentors used as free labor: If mentors aren't paid, some programs will lean on them to fill staff gaps. Pay mentors a modest stipend and keep the job about teaching.
    • Dead-end placements: A young person stuck sweeping floors learns nothing and quits. Each placement has written learning goals that someone checks.
    • No job at the end: Tie programs to real openings, with employers agreeing ahead of time to interview or hire people who finish.
  • What we'd watch: How many finish, how many young people are working in that field a year later, and how many mentors stay on.
  • When we'd rethink it: If few finish or few have jobs a year later, the pairing or the employer link is failing. Fix it program by program.
• Support local news
  • The idea: A refundable tax credit for hiring and keeping local reporters, plus a credit for local subscriptions. Both for-profit and nonprofit outlets could use it. New York and Illinois passed laws like this in 2024. Since 2005 the country has lost more than a third of its newspapers, and more than 200 counties have no local news source at all (Northwestern's Medill school). When local papers close, studies find local governments pay more to borrow and fewer people run for local office, because nobody is watching.
  • First reaction: Struggling papers keep reporters they would have laid off. Some new outlets open in places that had none.
  • What could happen next:
    • Newsrooms leaning toward whoever funds them: Grants picked by officials would invite exactly that. A tax credit goes automatically to anyone who qualifies, so no official decides who gets it or what gets covered.
    • Big chains taking the money and cutting anyway: Tie the credit to reporters actually employed and covering the area. Cap it per newsroom so most of the money reaches small outlets.
    • Fake "news" sites set up to collect the credit: Require real local reporting and a minimum share of original work, checked with simple audits.
  • What we'd watch: Local reporters per county, the number of counties with no local news, and how much people trust their local news.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the number of reporters doesn't go up where it's needed most, or most of the money goes to big chains, tighten the cap and the rules.
• Feeds that work for us
  • The idea: Large platforms would have to offer every user a simple feed that isn't ranked by engagement, like one in time order or one limited to accounts you chose, and remember that choice. Feeds ranked by engagement learn that outrage keeps people scrolling. A 2017 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that each moral or emotional word in a political tweet raised how often it was shared by about 20 percent.
  • First reaction: Platforms comply on paper but bury the option in settings, or reset it after updates.
  • What could happen next:
    • Nobody finds it: An option no one sees changes nothing. The choice has to be shown plainly at sign-up and now and then after, and it has to stick once chosen.
    • Free speech worries: This doesn't touch what anyone can say. It only lets people control how their own feed is sorted. We'd be fine with that rule no matter who was in charge.
    • Platforms making the plain feed worse on purpose: Audits compare how well each version works and check that the plain feed isn't padded with junk.
  • What we'd watch: How many people choose the plain feed and still use it three months later, how satisfied they are and how much time they spend.
  • When we'd rethink it: If almost nobody picks it even when it's easy to find, people may not want it. Then the effort should shift to other things, like teaching people how feeds work.

2. Cost of living and housing

Following the chain: a local tax on full-time short-term rentals and empty homes

• The idea: Towns could tax whole homes that are rented to tourists most of the year, or left empty.
• First reaction: Some owners find long-term tenants or sell, which adds homes for locals. The money goes to local housing.
• What could happen next:
  • Hiding: Owners list on lesser-known sites or claim the home as a residence. Platforms report listings, and enforcement needs real staff.
  • Tourism towns: Some places depend on visitors. Each town sets its own rate.
  • Not enough on its own: This frees up a few homes. It doesn't fix a shortage. It only works alongside building.
  • Small owners: A retiree renting out one cottage isn't a hotel chain. Exempt one extra unit, or scale the tax with how many units an owner has.
• What we'd watch: Long-term rentals added, rents, tourism jobs and unreported units.

The other ideas in this section

• Build more homes of every kind
  • The idea: Make it legal, by right, to build starter homes, duplexes, townhomes, backyard units and small apartment buildings near jobs and transit. By right means a project that meets the written rules gets approved without a hearing where someone can say no. Towns that actually add homes would get federal infrastructure money for roads, water and power. In most of the country it's simply illegal to build anything but a detached single-family house on most residential land. Every extra hearing adds months and cost, and another chance for the project to die. Where states changed this, building followed. After Minneapolis and Minnesota loosened zoning and allowed more homes along transit, rents in Minneapolis grew far more slowly than in the rest of the state through the early 2020s (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2024). Austin, Texas, built a lot after 2020 and saw rents fall from their peak.
  • First reaction: Builders file more permits for smaller and cheaper homes, because they can count on approval now. Neighbors who worry about traffic, parking or change push back at council meetings and in court.
  • What could happen next:
    • Only luxury units get built: Builders build what pays. Allowing small lots, small units and less required parking is what makes starter homes work financially. Those rules matter as much as density does.
    • Quiet slow-walking: Some towns will approve on paper and stall in practice, with fees, endless inspections or design rules. Publish each town's permit times and approval rates. Tie the infrastructure money to homes actually finished, not plans.
    • Strain on roads, schools and water: Growth does cost something. Part of the reward money goes to exactly those upgrades. That's why it's tied to building.
  • What we'd watch: Permits and finished homes by price range, rents and home prices compared with incomes, and permit times by town.
  • When we'd rethink it: If more homes get finished but almost all at the high end, loosen the small-lot and parking rules further. If a town takes the money and doesn't finish more homes, it stops getting it.
• Fix up the homes we already have
  • The idea: A rehab tax credit that covers the gap between what it costs to fix a run-down home and what it's worth when done. Along with it come renovation mortgages, land banks and rehab building codes (see the full commitment). In weak housing markets a house can cost $150,000 to repair and be worth $100,000 when finished. No bank will lend on that, so nobody fixes it. The credit closes the gap, and the home comes back into use with roads, pipes and power already there.
  • First reaction: Owners who'd live there, local builders and nonprofits start fixing homes that weren't worth it before. Neighbors see boarded-up houses come back, and that tends to lift confidence on the whole block.
  • What could happen next:
    • Flippers taking the credit: An investor could claim it, fix cheaply and sell high. So the full credit only goes to homes sold to, or lived in by, an owner who lives there. There's a cap on the sale price and a payback rule if the home is resold quickly.
    • Poor work: A quick cosmetic fix can hide real problems. The credit is paid only after the finished work passes inspection.
    • Pushing people out of neighborhoods that are already rising: In hot markets, rehab can push out longtime renters. Aim the credit at struggling areas where homes sit empty, the way the bipartisan Neighborhood Homes Investment Act does.
    • Tangled titles: Many vacant homes are stuck in unsettled estates or tax liens. Land banks and simple help clearing titles have to come with the credit, or the money sits unused.
  • What we'd watch: Vacant homes back in use, the cost of the credit per home, resale prices, and how many go to people who live in them.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the cost per home runs far above building new, or most credits end up with investors, tighten the rules.
• Help first-time buyers, together with more building
  • The idea: Down-payment help and fair mortgage terms for first-time buyers with moderate incomes. Saving a down payment is now the biggest hurdle for young families. The typical first-time buyer is about 38 years old, the oldest on record (National Association of Realtors, 2024).
  • First reaction: More people can afford to buy, and they start bidding on homes.
  • What could happen next:
    • Higher prices: If the number of homes doesn't grow, extra buying power mostly turns into higher prices, and sellers end up with the help. So the help only goes to areas where new homes are actually being added, and it grows as supply grows.
    • Buyers in over their heads: Help shouldn't push people into loans they can't carry. Require plain-language counseling and fixed-rate loans.
    • Help going to people who'd buy anyway: Target it by income and first-time status.
  • What we'd watch: Prices compared with new supply in areas getting the help, the share of first-time buyers, and defaults.
  • When we'd rethink it: If prices rise faster in those areas than elsewhere and no extra building follows, pause the help there.
• Mixed-income neighborhoods
  • The idea: Spread affordable homes through ordinary neighborhoods instead of grouping them in one place. Mostly we'd do it by giving builders extra density and faster permits in exchange for including some below-market homes. The research backs this up. In the Moving to Opportunity experiment, young children whose families moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods earned about 31% more as adults (Chetty, Hendren and Katz, 2016).
  • First reaction: Some builders take the deal and include affordable units. Neighbors sometimes object to who might move in.
  • What could happen next:
    • Projects stop making financial sense: Just requiring affordable units, with nothing in return, can make projects unprofitable, and then fewer homes of any kind get built. That's why the affordable units are paid for with bonuses instead of simply required.
    • Stigma: If affordable units are built worse or kept separate, it defeats the purpose. They have to look the same and share the same entrances and amenities.
    • Opposition based on fear: Being open about who lives in these homes matters as much as any rule. Often it's teachers, nurses, firefighters and young families.
  • What we'd watch: Total homes built where the bonuses are used, the income mix in new projects, and how kids do over time.
  • When we'd rethink it: If total building falls where the program runs, the bonus isn't big enough to cover the cost.
• Stop homelessness before it starts
  • The idea: Emergency rent help to stop evictions, supportive housing with services for people who need it, and treatment and job support. It's cheaper to keep someone housed than to pay for shelters, emergency rooms and jails after they lose a home. In a Chicago study, people who got one-time emergency money when they called a homeless hotline were 76% less likely to end up in a shelter (Evans, Sullivan and Wallskog, Science, 2016).
  • First reaction: Fewer evictions turn into time on the street, and fewer families end up in shelters.
  • What could happen next:
    • Money spread thin across too many programs: Many cities fund dozens of overlapping efforts and nobody tracks them together. Fund programs that track whether people are still housed a year later, and drop the ones that don't deliver.
    • Landlords raising rents because help is out there: Help only covers real back rent at normal rents, and it comes with building.
    • Street homelessness stays high: Prevention doesn't help people already living outside. They often need treatment and supportive housing first. Both have to run at once.
  • What we'd watch: How many are still housed a year later, how many people become homeless for the first time, and the cost per person kept housed.
  • When we'd rethink it: If a program can't show people staying housed after two years, its money goes to the ones that can.
• Everyday costs (groceries and utilities)
  • The idea: Enforce antitrust law in food and utilities. Give farmers more buyers to choose from. Help new local processors, co-ops and regional grocers get started. And publish the gap between what farmers are paid and what shoppers pay. A few big companies control much of the food chain, and that's a big part of why grocery prices have risen faster than many other costs.
  • First reaction: Regulators look harder at mergers. Big firms argue that their size keeps prices low.
  • What could happen next:
    • Slow enforcement: Antitrust cases take years. Faster merger review and clear rules about what counts as too concentrated would help.
    • Small competitors that can't survive: New processors and grocers need help getting started, like loans and shared facilities. Otherwise the big firms buy them or undercut them.
    • Sometimes bigger really is cheaper: Size can lower costs. We don't want to break up everything. We want to block deals that raise prices and keep markets open to newcomers.
  • What we'd watch: How fast grocery prices rise compared with costs, the farmer's share of the food dollar, and how much of each market the four biggest firms hold.
  • When we'd rethink it: If prices don't respond after several major actions, take another look at whether concentration is really what's driving prices in that market.

3. Community, childcare and family time

Following the chain: after-school programs that cover the gap

• The idea: Federal matching money for schools and community groups that run free or low-cost programs until 6:00. Service-year members, retirees and local tradespeople would help staff them.
• First reaction: Parents can work full days. Kids get help and activities. Fewer kids are home alone during the hours when teen trouble peaks.
• What could happen next:
  • Staffing: Programs fail without reliable staff. Pay real wages, and bring in mentors and service members.
  • Turning into babysitting: Without standards, it becomes screen time. Fund results like attendance and finished homework.
  • Rural kids: They need a ride home. Include transportation.
  • Crowding out: Existing local programs could lose funding to the new one. Fund the good programs that already exist first.
• What we'd watch: Enrollment, attendance, parents' work hours, kids' grades, and juvenile incidents in the after-school hours.

The other ideas in this section

• Make community events easy
  • The idea: One simple, cheap permit for small recurring events like night markets, music in the park, holiday festivals, repair cafes and club meetups, with small grants for the first year. Right now a group that wants to run a Thursday market may need separate permits for the street, food, music, tents and insurance. Each comes from a different office with its own fee. Most volunteers give up. Events matter because they're the easiest way for people who don't know each other to meet.
  • First reaction: More small events apply, especially from volunteers, congregations and small businesses that couldn't get through the old process.
  • What could happen next:
    • Neighbor complaints: Noise, parking and trash are real costs for people who live nearby. The permit comes with set hours, a cleanup plan and a contact person. Organizers with repeat problems lose the simple permit.
    • Liability: Insurance is often what kills small events. A city or county umbrella policy for permitted events can cover what single volunteers can't.
    • Events that only serve one crowd: Grants can favor neighborhoods that have few events now.
  • What we'd watch: Events by neighborhood, attendance, complaints per event, and whether people say they know more of their neighbors.
  • When we'd rethink it: If complaints per event go up year after year, tighten the hours or the cleanup rules.
• Open what we already own
  • The idea: Keep school gyms, libraries, workshops and community halls open evenings and weekends, with money for staff and a shared insurance pool. Taxpayers already paid for these buildings. Many sit locked every evening and weekend.
  • First reaction: Some schools and libraries stay open later. Others say no, mostly because of liability and staff costs.
  • What could happen next:
    • Liability fears: A state insurance pool for after-hours public use takes that risk off each school's budget.
    • Wear and damage: More use means more cleaning and repairs. Money for custodians and upkeep comes with the hours.
    • Security: Staffed hours, sign-in for some spaces, and partnering with groups people already trust locally, like rec leagues and congregations.
  • What we'd watch: Hours open, visits per hour, incidents and cost per visit.
  • When we'd rethink it: If use stays low after a year, the hours or the programs don't match what people want. Change them.
• Welcome families, by invitation
  • The idea: Small grants and shared liability coverage for businesses that choose to welcome families. A few cafes might share a supervised play corner, for example. Parents of young kids often stop going out at all, which cuts them off from their community right when they need it most.
  • First reaction: A handful of cafes, breweries and shops add play corners or family hours.
  • What could happen next:
    • Businesses feeling pushed: It has to stay voluntary. Adult-only and quiet places are fine too.
    • Safety incidents: Simple safety standards and shared coverage protect both kids and owners.
    • Other customers annoyed: Set family hours and areas instead of changing the whole day.
  • What we'd watch: How many businesses join, how many are still in after a year, and whether their sales go up.
  • When we'd rethink it: If most drop out within a year, the support isn't worth the hassle to them.
• Free places to be
  • The idea: Parks, shade, benches, public restrooms, water fountains and safe crossings, so social life doesn't depend on buying something. This matters most for people with less money, older people and families with kids. They're the first to stay home when every place to gather charges admission.
  • First reaction: More people spend time in public spaces. Nearby businesses often see more foot traffic.
  • What could happen next:
    • No money for upkeep: Many cities build things and then can't keep them up, so restrooms get locked and parks run down. Every new project comes with ten years of maintenance money.
    • Misuse or camping: A few places get hard for everyone to use. Staffed restrooms, good lighting and working with homelessness services (see section 2) work better than taking out the benches.
    • Unequal placement: Build first where there's the least now.
  • What we'd watch: Use by time of day and age group, how long facilities stay open and clean, and what residents say in surveys.
  • When we'd rethink it: If facilities close for upkeep problems within a few years, the maintenance money is too low.
• Childcare people can afford
  • The idea: Affordable, good care for kids under five, with real choice. Centers, home-based care, relatives and parents who stay home all get support. Childcare now costs more than in-state college tuition in many states. In 2024 the national average for one child was about $13,000 a year (Child Care Aware). Families either leave work or pay a huge share of what they earn.
  • First reaction: Demand jumps as more parents can afford care.
  • What could happen next:
    • Not enough workers: Childcare workers earn around $15 an hour on average, and many leave for retail or warehouse jobs. More money for families without more workers just means longer waitlists and higher prices. Raise worker pay and fund training first, then expand help to families.
    • Squeezing out home-based and family care: Rules written for big centers can push out the small in-home providers many families prefer. Keep room for them, with sensible safety standards.
    • Unfair to parents who stay home: Support should reach families who care for their own kids too, through the child amounts of the basic income (see section 5) and the child tax credit.
  • What we'd watch: Waitlists, worker pay and turnover, prices, and parents' work hours.
  • When we'd rethink it: If prices rise faster than the help, slow the expansion and put more into the workforce.
• Paid family leave
  • The idea: A national floor of 12 weeks of paid leave for a new child, a sick family member or your own serious illness. It's paid from a small shared payroll premium, with use-it-or-lose-it weeks for each parent and job protection (see the full commitment). About a quarter of American mothers go back to work within two weeks of giving birth. Many people lose jobs caring for a sick parent or child.
  • First reaction: More parents take leave, especially fathers, who rarely took it when it was unpaid.
  • What could happen next:
    • Small employers struggling to cover absences: The leave is paid from a shared insurance pool, not by each employer, so a small shop doesn't pay a worker's wages twice. Very small businesses get help with temporary staff.
    • Women hired less: Some employers may avoid hiring young women if they expect them to take leave. Use-it-or-lose-it weeks for fathers make leave normal for everyone, which cuts that bias.
    • The premium: A 0.4% premium on a $50,000 salary is about $200 a year, split between worker and employer. States can charge more for more generous plans.
  • What we'd watch: How many fathers and mothers take leave, how many mothers go back to work, small-business costs, and hiring patterns.
  • When we'd rethink it: If mothers' pay falls behind after leave, strengthen the fathers' leave and the job protection.
• Care, as one system
  • The idea: Plan and fund childcare, after-school care, disability support, eldercare and caregiver support together, with one application and care that fits real schedules (see the full commitment). The same family is often juggling a toddler, a teenager and an aging parent through three agencies with three sets of forms.
  • First reaction: Families find care more easily. The people who run the separate programs worry about losing control of their budgets.
  • What could happen next:
    • One big bureaucracy: Merging programs can create a bigger, slower agency. Keep providers local and varied. Only the front door, the paperwork and the planning get combined.
    • Workforce: Childcare and home care workers are some of the lowest paid in the country, and turnover is high. Without better pay and training, one system just means one longer waiting list.
    • Night, weekend and rural care costs more: Shift workers like nurses and firefighters need care at odd hours. Pay providers more for those hours, and pay for rides.
  • What we'd watch: How long it takes to find care, waiting lists, care available outside 9 to 5, worker turnover and how satisfied families are.
  • When we'd rethink it: If families still face waiting lists for most kinds of care after the workforce grows, the funding is too small.

4. Healthcare and mental health

Following the chain: insurers can't overrule your doctor

• The idea: No payer can deny care a doctor orders unless a clinician in the same field reviews it and gives a written reason, with a fast independent appeal. Payers that wrongly deny too often pay penalties.
• First reaction: Fewer improper denials, less paperwork, more time with patients.
• What could happen next:
  • Costs go up: Some denials really do stop wasteful care. Clear, public coverage rules based on evidence replace the hidden ones. The gatekeeping becomes honest. It doesn't disappear.
  • Overbilling: A few providers will push expensive care. Keep fraud review and track billing that's far outside the norm.
  • Premiums rise: That pressure feeds the move toward one public payer, which has to follow the same rules.
  • Slow reviews: Hard deadlines. Hours for urgent care, days for routine care.
• What we'd watch: How often care is denied and how often appeals overturn it, wait times, total spending and how patients do.

The other ideas in this section

• Move toward one public payer
  • The idea: One public plan pays for everyone's care, while doctors, clinics and hospitals stay independent. It comes in over two years, in January 2029 and January 2030. Care is paid in full except for truly elective procedures like cosmetic surgery. Private plans can only sell coverage for those, not for anything the public plan covers. Most of what makes American care expensive is having hundreds of payers, each with its own rules, forms, networks and prices, plus a system where your coverage is tied to your job. Every other wealthy country covers everyone for far less per person.
  • First reaction: Insurers fight hard, since this ends most of their core business. Some unions that won good plans through hard bargaining worry about losing what they have. Many employers quietly welcome the end of rising premiums.
  • What could happen next:
    • People lose plans they like before the new one works: Nobody moves until the public plan is running for their group. Coverage comes in two waves. First come everyone under 27, the uninsured, and people on Medicaid, CHIP or marketplace plans. A year later come everyone with job-based coverage and Medicare. The first wave is the test, so problems show up before the second.
    • Taxes go up before premiums go away: If the timing is off, families feel the tax and not the savings. Show every household its premium savings next to its tax change, and start the tax only when coverage starts. For the first years, employers get a tax credit for turning the premium they stop paying into wages. We'd publish how much reached workers. It's an incentive, not a mandate.
    • Hospitals that depend on high private prices: Many hospitals use private insurance payments to make up for low public rates. Paying everyone the same rate means some rates have to go up, especially for rural hospitals, while the highest-priced systems come down.
    • Waits: If everyone is covered and the number of doctors doesn't grow, waits get longer. Training more doctors and nurses (below) has to start first.
  • What we'd watch: Total health spending, wait times by type of care, how many families have medical debt, what each household pays overall, and hospital closures.
  • When we'd rethink it: If wait times for a group go past set limits, or total spending grows faster than before, slow the next phase until it's fixed.
• Cut paperwork and middlemen
  • The idea: One standard claim form, one set of billing rules and one price list for each service, whether or not we reach single payer. A typical doctor's office now deals with dozens of insurers, each with its own rules. Administration takes about 34% of U.S. health spending, roughly double Canada's.
  • First reaction: Billing departments shrink over time, and doctors spend less time on paperwork.
  • What could happen next:
    • Lost jobs in billing and insurance: Several hundred thousand people work in billing, coding and claims. They'd get retraining, placement and wage support during the change. Many could move into care jobs that are short-staffed.
    • Insurers resisting standard rules: Make them a condition of being paid by any public program, which covers most of the market.
    • New middlemen: Simpler systems can attract new kinds of brokers. Watch who takes a cut, and keep the rules plain.
  • What we'd watch: Administration's share of total spending, time doctors spend on paperwork, and what it costs to process claims.
  • When we'd rethink it: If administration's share hasn't fallen after a few years, find out where the paperwork went.
• End profit from saying no
  • The idea: Limit how insurers profit from denying care. Tie penalties to wrongful denials. Require a clinician in the same field to sign every denial with a written reason. And cap how much insurers can keep as profit and overhead. Today insurers earn more when they pay out less, so denials and delays become part of the business model.
  • First reaction: Fewer denials and faster approvals. Insurers warn that premiums will go up.
  • What could happen next:
    • Some care really isn't needed: Not every denial is wrong. Clear, public coverage rules based on evidence and written by clinicians replace the hidden ones, so whatever gatekeeping is left is honest.
    • Premiums rise: Some increase is likely at first. That pressure also strengthens the case for moving to one public payer, which has to follow the same rules.
    • Gaming through networks instead: Insurers may shrink their networks instead of denying claims. Network rules need enforcing too.
  • What we'd watch: Denial rates, how many denials are overturned on appeal, time to approval, premiums and spending growth.
  • When we'd rethink it: If spending jumps without better results, tighten the coverage rules.
• Doctors decide what to prescribe
  • The idea: Limit "step therapy," which makes a patient fail on a cheaper drug first, and secret drug lists, so doctors and patients choose the treatment. Where a cheaper option works as well, doctors get plain comparisons of cost and evidence instead of insurer rules.
  • First reaction: Fewer patients are forced off drugs that were working, and there are fewer delays.
  • What could happen next:
    • More expensive drugs prescribed: Some doctors will prescribe pricier brands when generics would do. Negotiated prices (below) and plain cost comparisons when prescribing do more than insurer roadblocks.
    • Drug makers marketing harder to doctors: Keep the public reporting of drug-maker payments to doctors that already exists, and make it easy to look up.
  • What we'd watch: Drug spending, how often generics are used, how patients do, and time to treatment.
  • When we'd rethink it: If drug spending rises sharply and patients don't do any better, bring back limited step rules for specific drugs, set by clinicians.
• Price transparency and merger limits
  • The idea: Real, simple price lists that patients and employers can compare. Real fines for hiding prices. No more extra "facility fees" for the same visit. And blocking hospital mergers that raise prices. Studies have found hospital prices in markets with one hospital run about 12% higher than in markets with four or more (Cooper and colleagues, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2019).
  • First reaction: Hospitals publish prices, some reluctantly and in formats that are hard to use.
  • What could happen next:
    • Posted but useless: Many hospitals posted price files no one could read. Require one standard format and a simple lookup tool.
    • Prices rising to match the highest: Sometimes transparency just lets sellers see each other's prices. That's why it comes with competition rules and negotiated rates, not on its own.
    • Mergers in disguise: Hospitals buy doctors' practices instead of other hospitals. Review those deals too.
  • What we'd watch: Prices in areas with mergers compared with areas without, facility fees charged, and how many patients use price tools.
  • When we'd rethink it: If prices don't fall in places with good data, the problem is market power. Strengthen the merger rules.
• More doctors and nurses
  • The idea: Fund more residency slots, the hospital training every new doctor has to finish, especially in rural areas and primary care. And let nurse practitioners and pharmacists do what they're trained to do. Medicare pays for most residency slots. Congress capped them in 1997 and they've grown only slowly since, so there's a bottleneck no matter how many students start medical school.
  • First reaction: Teaching hospitals and rural programs add slots, and training programs grow.
  • What could happen next:
    • New doctors still go to cities and high-paying specialties: Tie extra slots and loan forgiveness to years of service in rural areas or primary care.
    • Turf fights over who can do what: Doctors' groups may resist nurse practitioners and pharmacists doing more. Base the rules on evidence about safety and results, state by state.
    • It takes years: Making a new doctor takes about a decade. More nurse practitioners and telehealth help sooner.
  • What we'd watch: Doctors and nurses per person in rural counties, wait times for primary care, and how long new doctors stay.
  • When we'd rethink it: If rural numbers don't go up after the first trained group finishes, find out why before tightening anything. Pay, housing, supervision, a spouse's job prospects or working conditions may matter more than the length of the service commitment. Exit interviews, and comparing rural sites that have better housing or pay, can tell these apart.
• Pay for health, not volume
  • The idea: Pay providers more for keeping patients healthy and less for each test or procedure. Start with primary care, paid a flat amount per patient to manage their care. When providers are paid by the procedure, more procedures pay more, whether or not they help.
  • First reaction: Practices focus on prevention, follow-up and managing chronic disease.
  • What could happen next:
    • Avoiding sick patients: If pay is fixed per patient, some providers may avoid the sickest ones. Adjust payments for how sick patients are.
    • Skimping on care: A flat payment can tempt providers to do too little. Measure results, like hospital readmissions and blood pressure under control, and pay for them.
    • Gaming the numbers: Some will code patients as sicker than they are to get more money, as Medicare Advantage plans have done. Audit the coding.
  • What we'd watch: Hospital visits that could have been prevented, readmissions, how well chronic disease is controlled, and total cost per patient.
  • When we'd rethink it: If quality falls in practices paid this way, change the payment rules.
• A guaranteed path for new treatments
  • The idea: Proven new treatments, drugs and materials get covered on a fixed timeline, and research funding continues. This fixes a real weakness in some single-payer countries, where new treatments can take years to get covered.
  • First reaction: Drug and device makers keep investing, because they know when and how new products will be covered.
  • What could happen next:
    • Lower prices mean less research: Some argue lower drug prices mean fewer new drugs. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2022 that the Inflation Reduction Act's drug negotiation would cut the number of new drugs by about 1% over 30 years (13 out of about 1,300). Keep public research funding strong, since much early discovery is publicly funded anyway.
    • Covering everything new, proven or not: "Proven" has to mean real evidence that it helps, judged by independent reviewers.
  • What we'd watch: New drug approvals, time from approval to coverage, and private research spending.
  • When we'd rethink it: If approvals or research spending fall clearly below trend, take another look at prices and timelines.
• Protect people during the switch
  • The idea: Nobody loses care in the middle of treatment. Rural hospitals get protected funding. Billing and insurance workers get retraining and placement. Big changes in healthcare fail when people get hurt in the switch.
  • First reaction: Less fear of the change, and less organized opposition from people who would otherwise lose out.
  • What could happen next:
    • Protection costs money: Keeping everyone whole costs money at first. Count it in the transition budget.
    • Keeping alive hospitals that should close or merge: Protect access to care, not every building. Some hospitals may become clinics with emergency care.
  • What we'd watch: Interrupted treatment, rural hospital closures, and how many displaced workers find new jobs.
  • When we'd rethink it: If anyone's treatment gets interrupted, pause that phase until the transfer rules are fixed.
• Mental health, dental, vision and hearing
  • The idea: Treat these as health care in every plan. Bring mental health into regular doctors' offices. Grow the workforce, especially in rural areas. Untreated tooth, eye and hearing problems cause pain, lost work and isolation. Many people go without simply because their coverage leaves them out.
  • First reaction: Demand rises fast, because many people have put off care for years.
  • What could happen next:
    • Not enough providers: More than half of U.S. counties have no psychiatrist. Expand training and loan help first, and phase in benefits as the workforce grows.
    • Care that doesn't help much: Cover what works, based on evidence, and review it on a schedule.
  • What we'd watch: Wait times, providers per person, and unmet needs people report in surveys.
  • When we'd rethink it: If waits get long, slow down the new benefits and add workforce.
• Lower drug prices
  • The idea: Negotiate prices for more drugs, encourage generic and biosimilar competition, and reform the middlemen called pharmacy benefit managers.
  • First reaction: Prices fall on negotiated drugs, and patients pay less at the counter.
  • What could happen next:
    • Higher launch prices: Makers may set higher prices on new drugs to make up for the negotiated ones. Count launch prices in negotiation and compare them with other countries.
    • Drugs launched abroad first: Some makers may delay U.S. launches. The U.S. is still the biggest market, which limits this.
    • Middlemen moving their fees: Ban pay tied to list price, and require discounts to reach patients.
  • What we'd watch: Net drug prices, out-of-pocket costs, and how many new drugs launch in the U.S.
  • When we'd rethink it: If clearly fewer new drugs launch here, take another look at how prices are set for the newest ones.
• Everyone in, in two waves
  • The idea: Wave one, targeted for January 2029, brings in everyone under 27, the uninsured, and everyone on Medicaid, CHIP or a marketplace plan. That's about 160 million people. Wave two, targeted for January 2030, brings in everyone with job-based coverage and everyone on Medicare. Wave one starts with the people who cost the least, have the most to gain, or are already largely paid for by government, so the new system gets tested while it's smaller. There's no prior authorization, and claims are paid within 14 days. The full design is in Healthcare for Everyone.
  • First reaction: Families in wave one stop paying premiums, deductibles and copays. The uninsured get care before they're sick enough for the emergency room. Doctors and hospitals deal with one payer and one set of rules for a big share of their patients.
  • What could happen next:
    • Private plans lose their cheapest customers: For one year, private plans keep only job-based customers, so their premiums can go up. This is the biggest risk. We'd plan for it two ways. The program makes a stabilizing payment to the remaining private risk pool for that year, about $20 to $40 billion by our estimate, counted in the transition budget. And the date of wave two gets set in law, so the squeeze can't drag on.
    • Employer savings disappearing into profit: In 2030, employers stop paying premiums and pay a 6.5% payroll contribution instead. For most, that's less than they pay now. For the first years, a tax credit rewards passing those savings on as wages. We'd use the credit instead of a mandate, and publish how much went to workers.
    • Pay rates set too low: Medicaid pays doctors less than private plans, and some won't take it. Wave one moves Medicaid patients onto the national price list, which has to be high enough to keep doctors, children's hospitals and rural hospitals open. Pregnancy and delivery are covered in full from wave one.
    • Aging out before wave two: Nobody loses public coverage once they're in. Someone who turns 27 in 2029 stays covered until wave two brings everyone else in.
    • Systems not ready on time: Each wave starts only when its published readiness tests are met. The claims system has run the wave's full volume for six months. The price list has been public for a year. Everyone is enrolled. Enough providers have signed on in every region. And the trust fund holds its reserve. A missed test moves the wave back six months at a time. The closest examples we have, Medicare's launch in 1966 and HealthCare.gov's failed start in 2013, say to expect a slip of about a year. Nobody gets moved before their coverage works.
  • What we'd watch: The uninsured rate, claims paid within 14 days, how many doctors take part, wait times, private premiums in the gap year, changes in what employers pay workers, and total cost per person compared with the old system.
  • When we'd rethink it: If claims aren't paid on time or doctors start dropping out in wave one, fix pay rates and systems before wave two. If private premiums in the gap year rise faster than the stabilizing payment can cover, look at bringing wave two forward.

5. Work, income and automation

Following the chain: a shorter week through overtime rules

• The idea: Lower the federal overtime line step by step from 40 hours toward 32, and maybe 30. And narrow the exemptions that leave many salaried workers with no overtime at all. The 40-hour week itself came from the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. It stepped down from 44 hours partly to spread work across more people.
• First reaction: Hours past the new line cost more. That gives employers a reason to hire more people and schedule each one less. People who still work long weeks get paid more for it.
• What could happen next:
  • Lost pay: Fewer hours means smaller paychecks unless hourly wages go up. So the line only drops as fast as wages, the income floor and lower healthcare and housing costs can make up the difference.
  • Hidden pay cuts: Some employers may lower base pay so the total comes out the same. Minimum wage and enforcement have to keep up.
  • Jobs where hiring is hard: Firefighters, nurses and skilled trades may have nobody to hire, so the result is just higher costs and burnout. These need longer timelines, training pipelines and their own scheduling rules.
  • Small businesses: Phase it in by business size, along with the relief below.
  • Gaming: Misclassification and "independent contractor" loopholes grow. Tighten the definitions at the same time.
• Relief for employers: With healthcare for everyone, the medical half of workers' compensation goes away. Medical care is now more than half of workers' comp payouts, according to the National Academy of Social Insurance. Injured workers still need their wages replaced, maybe through disability insurance and the income floor. And we'd keep the original deal: no-fault benefits for workers, in exchange for employers being protected from injury lawsuits.
• What we'd watch: Average hours, take-home pay, number of jobs, how many work part time, small-business closures and staffing in critical jobs. If take-home pay drops, pause the next step.

The other ideas in this section

• Universal basic income
  • The idea: A monthly payment to every adult, with extra for children. It never phases out, and it goes on top of every program that exists now. Each child gets 250fromdayone(125 from a family's fifth child on). Adults start at $500 a month in 2029 and go up $125 at a time toward $1,000 as the money comes in (see the full commitment and Paying for it). AI is already taking away the first rungs of the career ladder, and nobody knows how fast it will spread. A floor that's already in place is far easier to count on than emergency help passed after the damage is done. Universal also means no paperwork, no stigma and no penalty for earning more, which programs based on income can't avoid.
  • First reaction: Most families spend the money on basics. In the OpenResearch study, most of the extra spending went to food, rent and transportation. Many pay down debt, build a small emergency cushion, fix the car or finally see a dentist. Some use it as a bridge to change jobs, finish training or start a small business.
  • What could happen next:
    • Landlords raise rents: Where homes are scarce, extra money can flow straight to landlords. Stepping the adult amount up over several years gives new building time to catch up. The housing push in section 2 starts before payments begin, and local rents get tracked from the first month. Where rents jump, the fix is faster building and the renter protections in section 2, not a smaller payment.
    • Prices in general: Adding money without adding goods could push prices up. The payment is paid for mostly with real revenue, and any borrowing is capped by the plan's debt rule. So it mostly moves spending power around instead of creating new money. The VAT starts at a modest 10%, which raises prices once by roughly 5%, and benefits tied to prices are protected.
    • Some people work less: The OpenResearch study found people worked about 1.3 fewer hours a week, mostly by taking more time between jobs and being choosier. Some of that is good. Think of a parent at home with a newborn, a student finishing school, or someone leaving an abusive job. If the drop is large and widespread, we'd find the cause and adjust things like training and apprenticeships before touching the payment.
    • Programs quietly cut: Some will argue that once everyone gets a basic income, programs for people with disabilities or deep poverty can be trimmed. The law should say plainly that the income doesn't count against any program and can't be used to justify cuts.
    • A political target: A payment to everyone, including the rich, invites "why pay billionaires?" Because the top pays far more back in taxes than it gets. And paying everyone is what keeps the program simple and hard to whittle away.
  • What we'd watch: Poverty and hunger, rents by region, inflation, hours worked and job changes, new businesses, health and family stability. Each year is a checkpoint.
  • When we'd rethink it: If rents in tight markets rise sharply after launch, or hours worked fall well past what the pilots found, first check whether housing supply, prices or job changes explain it. Fix that cause before changing the payment.
• Paid public work that matters
  • The idea: Paid jobs rebuilding infrastructure, restoring land, cutting fuel loads to prevent wildfire, and providing care, at fair wages, especially in regions hit hardest by job loss. The Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s employed about 3 million young men. It left trails, parks and fire roads we still use today. There's real work like that waiting now. Millions of acres of forest need fuel reduction, and there's a big backlog of repairs.
  • First reaction: People take public jobs in hard times or between jobs, and stalled projects get moving.
  • What could happen next:
    • Make-work: Pointless projects destroy trust fast. Only fund projects with results you can measure, like acres treated, roads fixed or homes made safer, and publish the results.
    • Pulling workers from private jobs: If pay is far above local private wages, it can drain workers from local employers. Set pay fair but not above the local going rate for similar work.
    • Undercutting public workers we already have: These jobs add to current crews and staff. They never replace them.
  • What we'd watch: Projects finished and how good the work is, private hiring nearby, and where workers go afterward.
  • When we'd rethink it: If projects can't show results, or local employers report real shortages caused by the program, scale back in that area.
• Training that leads to jobs
  • The idea: Apprenticeships and retraining tied to real openings, especially in trades that are hard to automate. Many past federal retraining programs got weak results because they trained people for jobs that didn't exist locally. Programs built with employers have done much better. In a long-term study of Project QUEST in San Antonio, people who went through it were earning about $5,000 a year more nine years later.
  • First reaction: More people sign up, especially young people and workers whose jobs are changing.
  • What could happen next:
    • Training for jobs that don't exist: Only fund programs where employers agree to interview or hire, and pay training providers partly on results.
    • Programs picking the easy cases: If providers are paid on results, they may avoid people who are harder to place. Pay more for results with people who face bigger barriers.
    • Lost income while training: People can't train if they can't pay rent. The basic income and paid apprenticeships cover this.
  • What we'd watch: Job placement and wages one year and three years after training.
  • When we'd rethink it: If a program's graduates don't earn more than similar people who didn't train, its money goes elsewhere.
• Benefits that follow you
  • The idea: Portable benefits for gig and contract workers. Every company pays the same small amount for every hour or job worked into an account the worker keeps. Today health and retirement depend on having one full-time employer, which leaves tens of millions of independent workers with little or nothing.
  • First reaction: Gig workers start building retirement savings and other benefits. Companies add the cost to their prices.
  • What could happen next:
    • Costs passed to customers: Rides and deliveries may cost a little more. That's the real cost of the work, paid instead of hidden.
    • Companies relabeling workers to dodge costs: Every company pays the same per hour no matter what the worker is called, so there's less reason to play games with labels.
    • Not a substitute for employee protections: Portable benefits shouldn't become an excuse to strip protections from people who really are employees.
  • What we'd watch: How many gig and contract workers have benefits, their retirement balances, and prices for gig services.
  • When we'd rethink it: If few are covered, change the contribution or the design.
• Workers' voice
  • The idea: Support the right to organize with faster, fairer union elections and real penalties for illegally firing organizers. Encourage partnership deals that share the gains from new technology with workers. About 10% of U.S. workers now belong to unions, down from about 20% in 1983, while polls show most nonunion workers want more say at work.
  • First reaction: More organizing drives, especially in fast-growing work like warehouses and services.
  • What could happen next:
    • Strikes in essential services: Keep rules for essential services, like required notice and arbitration, so public safety isn't put at risk.
    • Unions blocking new technology: The better path is deals that share the gains, like retraining, shorter hours or profit sharing. Some dockworker and auto agreements have done this.
    • Employers resisting: Fast elections and penalties for illegal tactics keep the process fair to workers. Employers keep the right to make their case.
  • What we'd watch: Union elections held and won, wages, productivity and workplace injury rates.
  • When we'd rethink it: If productivity falls in union shops, check whether the agreements are blocking useful changes.
• A say in how technology changes your job
  • The idea: When a large employer automates a lot of jobs, workers get advance notice, a chance to weigh in, first claim on retraining and new roles, and a share of the savings (see the full commitment). Today most workers find out their job is being automated when it's already gone.
  • First reaction: Large employers plan automation earlier and talk to workers sooner. Some complain about the delay and cost.
  • What could happen next:
    • Slowing useful change: Notice and consultation can't become a veto. The employer still decides. The rule covers timing, training and sharing the gain.
    • Companies moving work abroad instead: Apply the rule to large changes that affect U.S. jobs, whether the work is automated or moved.
    • Burdening small businesses: Only apply it above a size limit, like 100 workers.
  • What we'd watch: How many displaced workers move into new roles at the same company, and their wages afterward.
  • When we'd rethink it: If companies put off useful upgrades or move work abroad to avoid the rule, simplify it.
• Own a share of what you build
  • The idea: Tax breaks for owners who choose to sell their business to employees or a cooperative, with low-cost loans and plain advice. Studies of employee-owned companies find they tend to lay off fewer workers in downturns, and their workers have more saved for retirement.
  • First reaction: Some retiring owners sell to their workers instead of closing or selling to a competitor.
  • What could happen next:
    • Workers taking on risk: Owning shares in your own employer puts a lot of eggs in one basket. Keep retirement savings spread out alongside ownership.
    • Badly run buyouts: Workers may overpay or lack management experience. Require an independent valuation and offer training.
  • What we'd watch: How many businesses convert, how long they last, and workers' wealth.
  • When we'd rethink it: If converted companies fail more often than similar ones, improve the support.
• Make it easier to start something
  • The idea: Simple licensing, community loans, shared space and fair access to government contracts (see the full commitment). New business starts fell for decades before bouncing back after the pandemic. Barriers like occupational licensing, which now covers roughly a fifth of workers, keep some people out of trades they could safely practice.
  • First reaction: More people start businesses, especially in trades, food and services.
  • What could happen next:
    • Lower safety standards: Keep the rules that protect health and safety. Drop the ones that only protect the businesses already there.
    • Bad loans: Community lenders need training and backing to judge risk.
  • What we'd watch: New businesses started and how many are still open after five years.
  • When we'd rethink it: If new businesses fail at much higher rates, add mentoring and better lending.
• A jobs trigger for deep AI job loss
  • The idea: If unemployment plus underemployment (U-6) stays above 12% for two quarters, several things switch on. The automation tax on excess profits goes up 5 points for each point above 12%, up to 35%. A surcharge kicks in for big companies whose U.S. payroll has shrunk compared with what they produce. VAT increases freeze. And the general budget covers the wage contributions the health fund loses. It all switches off once U-6 has been below 10% for a year.
  • First reaction: Companies replacing large numbers of workers pay more of what they save. Families losing hours don't also face a higher sales tax.
  • What could happen next:
    • Gains show up as lower prices instead of profits: Then there's less to tax. Lower prices make the basic income go further, but the budget gap stays, so the backstop rule sends it to Congress within a year.
    • Profits moving abroad: Only U.S. payroll counts toward the surcharge, so offshoring raises it. The global minimum tax limits profit shifting.
    • Hiring slowing near the line: Credits for retraining, shorter hours at the same pay and worker shares lower what a company owes, so keeping people pays.
    • An ordinary recession setting it off: The tax only falls on profits above a normal return, and those shrink in a downturn. So it raises little then and doesn't make the slump worse.
  • What we'd watch: U-6, the share of income going to wages, profits at the largest companies, and how much of the gap the trigger actually closes.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the trigger closes much less than half the gap for two years, raise the cap or add another source.

6. Taxes, budget and debt

Following the chain: tightening rules on stock buybacks

• The idea: Raise the buyback excise tax above today's 1%, and ban executives from selling their own shares for a set time after a buyback is announced.
• First reaction: Less reason to pump up the share price in the short term. More profit goes to wages, research, equipment or ordinary dividends.
• What could happen next:
  • Dividends instead: Companies may just pay bigger dividends. That's more open and gets taxed when people receive it, which is mostly fine.
  • Cash piling up: Companies may sit on cash or move it overseas. Watch how much cash companies hold, and close the loopholes that go with this.
  • Retirement accounts: Buybacks raise the share prices that pensions and 401(k)s rely on. Phase it in and measure the effect on ordinary investors.
  • Executive pay: Executives may push for pay tied to other short-term numbers. Review how executive pay is tied to performance.
• What we'd watch: Business investment, wages, how much companies buy back, and when executives sell their stock.

The other ideas in this section

Taxes are where people react fastest. A good accountant can change behavior in a single filing season.

• Higher rates on very high incomes
  • The idea: Higher rates on income in the top fraction of a percent, for example above $1 million a year. The rate only applies to the part of income above the line. This is about fairness and revenue. In 2022 the top 1% earned about 22% of all income, and the very top earns a growing share from sources taxed less than wages.
  • First reaction: Top earners and their advisers move income into forms that are taxed less, like capital gains, deferred pay, business income passed through to owners, or income pushed into other years.
  • What could happen next:
    • Avoidance eats the revenue: If rates only go up on wages, income moves elsewhere. That's why this comes with taxing very large gains like wages (below) and closing pass-through and deferral loopholes at the same time. A higher rate with open loopholes mostly creates work for tax planners.
    • Moving away: Very few people give up citizenship over taxes, and U.S. citizens owe federal tax wherever they live. Moving to another state doesn't change federal taxes.
    • Small-business owners caught by the line: Many owners report business income on their personal returns. Set the line high enough, and average income over a few years, so one good year selling a business doesn't push an ordinary owner into the top bracket.
  • What we'd watch: Reported top incomes before and after, revenue compared with the estimate, and shifts between types of income.
  • When we'd rethink it: If revenue falls well short because income is shifting, close the route it's moving through before raising rates any further.
• No tax on paper gains
  • The idea: We don't tax the rise in value of stock, land or a business until it's sold. Valuing every private business and farm every year is hard and invites fights. And forcing people to sell part of a farm or business to pay tax on money they never received is unfair.
  • First reaction: Wealth keeps growing untaxed until it's sold. That's how most large fortunes are built.
  • What could happen next:
    • "Buy, borrow, die": The largest fortunes can avoid selling for life. They borrow against their stock to live on, and their heirs inherit with the gain wiped out. This is the main hole this rule leaves. We'd close it two ways. Very large estates pass on the original purchase price (below). And very large loans against stock that's gone up count as a sale once borrowing passes $10 million.
    • Pressure to change course: Critics will say this rule protects billionaires. The other ideas do that work. This rule protects farmers and family businesses.
  • What we'd watch: How much the top 0.1% borrow against their stock, and how much of the largest fortunes ever gets taxed.
  • When we'd rethink it: If borrowing against stock grows fast enough to get around the other rules, lower the loan limit.
• Inherited gains: heirs keep the original price above about $5 million
  • The idea: For estates above about $5 million per person, heirs keep the original purchase price for tax purposes and pay capital gains tax when they sell (see the full commitment). Everyone below that keeps today's rule.
  • First reaction: Heirs of very large estates hold on to assets longer, and estate planners look for new routes.
  • What could happen next:
    • Lost records: Families may not know what Grandpa paid for the land in 1962. Use a simple default, like the value on a set date, when records are missing.
    • Heirs holding on: Heirs may keep assets just to avoid the tax. That's acceptable. The tax comes due whenever they sell, and the estate tax still applies at death.
    • Splitting estates to stay under: Count gifts made during life and trusts toward the line.
  • What we'd watch: Sales by heirs, revenue collected, and how many estates the rule reaches.
  • When we'd rethink it: If it raises far less than expected, review the line or the trust rules.
• 3 years to get the lower capital gains rate
  • The idea: The lower rate on investment gains only applies after holding an asset 3 years instead of 1. Gains on anything held less than 3 years are taxed like wages. We want to reward people who back companies for years, not quick trading.
  • First reaction: Investors hold longer, which is the point. Some sales get pushed back to the three-year mark.
  • What could happen next:
    • Money stuck in place: People may hold assets they'd otherwise sell, so money moves less freely to new uses. The effect is limited. Most long-term investors already hold more than three years, and retirement accounts aren't affected at all.
    • Startups and small businesses: Founders' small-business stock keeps its own exclusion (Section 1202), so early-stage investment isn't hurt.
    • When the revenue comes in: Fewer quick sales mean less tax at first. The estimate has to count that.
  • What we'd watch: How long people hold stocks, trading volume, new stock offerings and small-business investment.
  • When we'd rethink it: If new offerings or venture investment clearly fall, look at whether the line should be shorter.
• Very large gains taxed like wages (income over $1 million)
  • The idea: For households with income above $1 million, capital gains are taxed at the same rates as wages. Founders' small-business stock and the sale of a business or farm the seller actually ran are exceptions. Today people who earn mostly from investments can pay a lower rate than a nurse.
  • First reaction: Fewer sales at the very top, and more effort to time sales into years with lower income.
  • What could happen next:
    • Timing games: People may spread sales over years to stay under the line. Average income over several years when setting it.
    • Selling less, so less revenue: Higher rates can mean fewer sales. But with heirs keeping the original price, holding forever no longer avoids the tax, so waiting pays off less.
  • What we'd watch: Gains people actually take at the top, and revenue compared with estimates.
  • When we'd rethink it: If people sell so much less that revenue falls, the rate is higher than the system can collect, and it should come down.
• The America Fund (1.5% of shares a year)
  • The idea: Public companies worth more than $1 billion add 1.5% of their shares a year to a public fund. The fund keeps the shares. Most of its dividend income goes toward the monthly basic income for every adult and child. It's part of the same payment, not a second check. The point is to give everyone a stake in the companies AI and automation will make most valuable, without taxing paper gains or taking cash from the companies.
  • First reaction: Share prices adjust once to reflect the new shares. Some companies try to stay private longer or stay just under $1 billion.
  • What could happen next:
    • Current owners, including retirement savers, own a little less: Every existing shareholder owns a slightly smaller slice each year. That's the real cost of this tax. It's spread across owners in proportion to what they own, including the wealthiest. Retirement savers also share in the fund's income through the basic income.
    • Moving the company's legal home overseas: Base the rule on where a company's sales and workers are, not where it's incorporated, so moving the paperwork doesn't help.
    • Staying under the line: Phase it in between $1 billion and $2 billion so there's no cliff. Private companies are left out of the fund, but large ones still pay the automation tax, so staying private doesn't get them out of paying in.
    • Political control of business: A fund that owns a big slice of the economy could become a political weapon. It only votes its shares to mirror other shareholders. It can't be used to pick winners. Its board is shielded from politics, like the Alaska and Norway funds.
  • What we'd watch: New stock offerings, companies moving abroad, the fund's value and payout, and how it votes.
  • When we'd rethink it: If companies leave the U.S. market or stop listing in large numbers, slow the rate or change the size line.
• Trading toll and short-position charge
  • The idea: A tiny tax on very fast trading, a fee for high-frequency orders that get canceled almost right away, and a small yearly charge on very large short positions, with exemptions for hedging. The goal is to slow the most extreme short-term trading, which adds little to the real economy, and raise some money.
  • First reaction: Less high-speed trading and fewer canceled orders.
  • What could happen next:
    • Trading moves offshore or into derivatives: Sweden's trading tax in the 1980s drove much of its trading to London. Tax U.S. persons wherever they trade, and tax equivalent derivatives the same way.
    • Higher costs for ordinary investors: If trading thins out, the gap between buying and selling prices can widen. Start low, around 0.01%, and only raise it if spreads stay tight.
    • Short sellers who catch fraud: Short sellers often expose fraud first. That's why short selling is taxed lightly instead of banned, and only very large positions pay.
  • What we'd watch: Bid-ask spreads, trading volume, market swings and revenue.
  • When we'd rethink it: If spreads widen noticeably for ordinary investors, lower the rate.
• Automation tax on companies that replace workers
  • The idea: A 20% tax on large companies' profits above a normal return on their investment. That's the design the funding numbers use. We're also looking at another design that hasn't been modeled yet. It would put a surcharge on companies with over $1 billion in U.S. revenue whose U.S. payroll falls compared with the value they create. It would end full write-offs for big companies' equipment that replaces workers. It would add a 5% tax on large AI companies' sales that rises when unemployment rises, and a fee on the electricity giant data centers use. As AI and automation replace work, the companies capturing the gains help pay for the floor under the people affected, not just the companies selling AI. Retraining, shorter hours at the same pay and employee ownership count against the surcharge.
  • First reaction: AI companies pass some of the cost on to customers and lobby for exemptions.
  • What could happen next:
    • Moving abroad: Tax AI sold to U.S. customers wherever the servers are, the way sales taxes reach online sellers.
    • Slowing useful technology: A tax that's too high could slow AI that helps people. Keep the base rate modest. It only goes up if unemployment goes up.
    • What counts as an "AI company": Almost every company will use AI, so the surcharge doesn't try to define AI. It looks at what happens to U.S. payroll at large companies. Contractors count as payroll so work can't be moved off the books. Small businesses are exempt.
  • What we'd watch: AI prices, where data centers get built, revenue and unemployment.
  • When we'd rethink it: If AI investment moves heavily abroad, redesign what gets taxed.
• A stronger estate tax
  • The idea: Make the estate tax we already have work on the largest estates, with real protection for working family farms and small businesses. Today very large estates often pay little because of trusts and valuation discounts.
  • First reaction: More estate planning, trusts and gifts during life.
  • What could happen next:
    • Family farms and businesses forced to sell: Very few estates are affected. Under recent rules only a few thousand estates a year owe any estate tax at all (about 4,000 in 2023, by the Tax Policy Center's estimate). Keep real limits for working farms and businesses, and let them pay over many years.
    • Trust loopholes: Close the main ones, like grantor-retained annuity trusts used to pass wealth on tax-free.
  • What we'd watch: Farm and business sales after a death, and revenue.
  • When we'd rethink it: If working farms are being sold to pay the tax, widen the protection.
• Rein in stock buybacks: See the example at the top of this section.
• Enforcement aimed at the top
  • The idea: Fund tax enforcement aimed at the highest incomes and complex partnerships. The IRS puts the tax gap, taxes owed but not paid, at about $700 billion a year. Much of it comes from income nobody else reports to the IRS, and that's concentrated at the top.
  • First reaction: More audits of high-income returns and complex partnerships, and more people paying on their own.
  • What could happen next:
    • Ordinary filers getting caught up: Written rules focus audits on high incomes and complex returns, and audit rates by income get published.
    • Funding swinging with politics: Enforcement money has been cut and restored over and over. A commitment over several years works better.
  • What we'd watch: Audit rates by income, money collected per dollar spent, and the tax gap.
  • When we'd rethink it: If audit rates go up for ordinary families, the rules aren't working.
• Cutting waste
  • The idea: Start with defense contracting, duplicate programs and spending incentives that reward waste (see sections 12 and 20), with savings checked by independent auditors. The GAO publishes a yearly list of duplicate and overlapping programs. When its recommendations have been acted on, they've already saved hundreds of billions.
  • First reaction: Agencies and contractors push back, and some savings claims are inflated.
  • What could happen next:
    • Cutting useful programs instead: Across-the-board cuts hit good and bad alike. Start with programs GAO has already flagged, and measure the quality of service.
    • Savings that aren't real: Independent auditors confirm every saving before it's counted.
  • What we'd watch: Confirmed savings and quality of service.
  • When we'd rethink it: If service gets worse where cuts were made, restore it and look elsewhere.
• Serious debt reduction
  • The idea: Stop the debt growing faster than the economy, then bring it down on a published schedule. Programs get funded first. The plan's own borrowing is limited by the guardrail in section 5. And the schedule pauses during recessions. Interest on the debt now costs more than defense, and it crowds out everything else.
  • First reaction: Less room for new spending, and pressure to phase in big programs carefully.
  • What could happen next:
    • Cutting too fast in a downturn: Cutting spending when the economy is weak makes recessions worse. The schedule pauses automatically when unemployment rises.
    • Gimmicks: Budget tricks can fake progress. Each year's results get scored independently.
  • What we'd watch: The deficit, debt compared with the size of the economy, interest costs and unemployment.
  • When we'd rethink it: If interest keeps taking a bigger share of the budget, speed up the path.
• All the taxes, stacked together
  • The idea: Several of the plan's taxes land on the same paycheck. There's the health contribution (8% on middle incomes and 16% above $125,000 for a single person or $200,000 for a couple, plus 6.5% from employers). There's the VAT (10%, rising to 22% if needed). There's a smaller standard deduction above $100,000, the leave premium, and Social Security tax on all wages above today's cap. We first estimated each one alone. Added up, a $60,000 worker's combined rate on the next dollar goes from about 25% today to about 41%. A top earner's goes from about 40% to about 75% in a state with no income tax (see "All the taxes, added up" in Paying for it).
  • First reaction: Most working families pay a higher rate on the next dollar but come out ahead overall, because premiums end and the basic income arrives. High earners look for ways to shift, delay or relabel income.
  • What could happen next:
    • Working a little less: Some second earners and people near retirement may work fewer hours. But the basic income never phases out, and healthcare no longer depends on income or a job. So the benefit cliffs that trap low earners today go away, and that pushes the other way. The steepest point is between $125,000 and $150,000 for a single person, where the higher health rate starts and the deduction phases down.
    • Income shifting at the top: Rates this high mostly create tax planning. So the plan keeps the top rates where they are instead of raising them further. It widens what's taxed instead, like inherited gains above $5 million and large loans against stock. It counts about $190 billion a year less than the separate estimates add up to. And it closes the routes income shifts through.
    • Employers keeping the premium savings: If employers don't pass on what they stop paying in premiums, middle earners without children gain less. A tax credit rewards passing it on, and the results get published.
    • Moving to low-tax states or off the books: State taxes stack on top. Watch where high earners file, and keep enforcement funded.
  • What we'd watch: Hours worked by income, how much second earners work, reported top incomes against the forecast, wage growth where premiums ended, and signs of a growing cash economy.
  • When we'd rethink it: If reported top incomes fall well past the $190 billion allowance, lower the top layers instead of raising the rest. If hours drop sharply between $125,000 and $150,000, take another look at where the 16% health rate starts and how it phases in.
• Family size and the health contribution
  • The idea: Each parent's health rate goes up 0.25 points for each child, with no cap. The basic income pays half the child amount ($125) from a family's fifth child on. Every child's care stays fully covered, and the first four children get the full amount. The money, about $22 billion a year, moves the single worker's 16% line from $100,000 to $125,000.
  • First reaction: Most families barely notice. A couple earning $100,000 with two children pays about $500 a year more. Larger, higher-income families give back part of their gain. Single workers between $100,000 and $150,000 pay up to $2,000 a year less.
  • What could happen next:
    • Hurting children in large families: A child's own care is never touched. Below about $100,000, every extra child still leaves the family better off. Watch child poverty in large families and soften the rule if it goes up.
    • A marriage penalty: The couple line stays at $200,000 while the single line goes up to $125,000. So two people earning $125,000 each pay more once they marry. Fixing it costs about $50 billion a year.
    • Reporting children differently: Parents might list a child under a grandparent or ex-partner to dodge the add-on. Count children the way the child tax credit already does.
  • What we'd watch: Child poverty by family size, marriage rates near the lines, and what the add-on actually raises against the $22 billion estimate.
  • When we'd rethink it: If child poverty in large families goes up, or the add-on raises well short, take another look at the rate or the fifth-child line.

7. Education and skills

Following the chain: paying teachers more to work where they're needed most

• The idea: A sizable federal bonus and student-loan forgiveness for good teachers who stay five years or more in high-need schools. Plus paid training so career-changers and aides can become teachers.
• First reaction: More applicants, and less turnover in schools that go through new teachers every year.
• What could happen next:
  • Pulling teachers from nearby schools: Define "need" carefully and watch the schools next door.
  • Money isn't the only reason teachers leave: Pair the pay with aides, safety and less reporting.
  • Gaming the label: Use outside data to decide which schools qualify.
  • Quality: Getting in faster can lower standards. First years are mentored, with clear expectations.
• What we'd watch: How many stay five years, open positions, how much students learn, and staffing at nearby schools.

The other ideas in this section

• Support teachers (aides, prep time, less paperwork)
  • The idea: Better base pay, classroom aides, protected time to prepare, and less of the reporting that pulls teachers away from teaching. Plus paid routes into teaching for aides and career-changers. Teachers leave at high rates, about 8% a year. When asked why, they name workload, lack of support and student behavior as often as pay. Every teacher who leaves costs a district roughly $20,000 or more to replace (Learning Policy Institute), and students in schools with high turnover learn less.
  • First reaction: Fewer teachers quit, more people apply, and aides take on the tasks that were crowding out teaching.
  • What could happen next:
    • Money stopping at the district office: New money can get soaked up by administration. Tie it to aides and classroom time, and publish spending school by school.
    • Paperwork creeping back: Every new program adds forms. Each new requirement should come with one taken away. Survey teachers on how much work they're actually doing.
    • Raises without better teaching: Pair raises with mentoring and career paths that reward skill, like lead-teacher roles, instead of only years served.
  • What we'd watch: Teacher turnover and open positions, applications per opening, and how much students learn in schools that got the support.
  • When we'd rethink it: If turnover doesn't drop within three years, ask the teachers who leave what's still driving them out.
• The basics: meals, counselors, special education
  • The idea: Free breakfast and lunch for every student. A counselor ratio closer to the recommended one for every 250 students (the national average is about one for every 385). And full funding for special education. A hungry, anxious or unsupported kid can't learn, no matter how good the teacher is. In 1975 Congress promised to cover 40% of the extra cost of special education. It has never paid even half of that. Usually it's covered around 13 to 15%.
  • First reaction: Kids show up fed and more ready to learn. Families save money. School lunch loses its stigma, because everyone eats.
  • What could happen next:
    • Costs for districts: If the money doesn't come with it, districts cut somewhere else. Federal and state money covers the full cost. This can't be an unfunded mandate.
    • Food quality: Free meals kids won't eat are wasted. Fund kitchens and local food, not just reheated trays.
    • Not enough counselors: There's a shortage. Fund training and loan help first.
  • What we'd watch: Attendance, behavior problems, test scores, special education waitlists and counselor ratios.
  • When we'd rethink it: If attendance and behavior don't get better where meals and counselors are added, look at how the programs are run.
• Stop teaching to the test
  • The idea: Keep a few honest measures, like reading and math at key grades, to spot kids falling behind and check fairness. Drop the rest. Heavy testing pressure shrinks what gets taught down to what gets tested, and many schools spend weeks a year on test prep.
  • First reaction: More class time for projects, writing and deeper learning.
  • What could happen next:
    • Struggling kids slipping through: Part of why testing exists is so schools can't hide kids who are falling behind. Keep the few measures that flag them early, and publish results by group.
    • Schools dodging accountability: Less testing can mean less pressure to improve. Keep honest public reporting, plus school visits by experienced reviewers.
  • What we'd watch: Reading and math in grades 3 and 8, the gaps between groups, and time spent on test prep.
  • When we'd rethink it: If scores or gaps get worse, bring back more measuring where it's needed.
• Learning that connects to life
  • The idea: Hands-on projects that show why core subjects matter, borrowing from Montessori and Waldorf where the evidence holds up (see the full commitment). Kids learn more when they see why something matters, and checking out is one of the strongest signs a student will drop out.
  • First reaction: Students see the point of math and reading, and they get more engaged.
  • What could happen next:
    • Fun with little learning: Projects can turn into crafts with no skills. Tie every project to specific skills and check them.
    • Teachers without training: Teaching through projects is harder than it looks. Training and shared lesson plans come first.
  • What we'd watch: Engagement surveys, attendance and core skill scores.
  • When we'd rethink it: If core scores fall, shift back toward direct teaching.
• More than the main subjects
  • The idea: Clubs, arts, music, sports, shop and outdoor learning, tied back to the core subjects. These are often the first things cut in a tight budget. For a lot of kids they're the reason to come to school at all.
  • First reaction: More students join activities, and attendance improves.
  • What could happen next:
    • Pay-to-play fees: Fees shut out kids from families with less money. Fund activities so they're free.
    • Squeezing core time: Schedule activities around the core subjects, not instead of them.
  • What we'd watch: Who takes part by family income, attendance and dropout rates.
  • When we'd rethink it: If lower-income students still aren't taking part, look at rides and fees.
• Help parents help
  • The idea: Plain-language homework guides, translation and tutoring, so helping your kid doesn't take a degree or a free afternoon. Parent involvement is one of the most consistent signs a student will do well, and lots of parents want to help but don't know how.
  • First reaction: Parents use the guides and tutoring, especially in math.
  • What could happen next:
    • Families who need it most never hear about it: Reach them through teachers, texts and community groups, in their own languages.
    • Tutoring that's hit or miss: Intensive tutoring, several times a week in small groups, has strong evidence behind it. Occasional drop-in help does little. Fund the kind that works.
  • What we'd watch: Who uses tutoring by family income, and how students progress.
  • When we'd rethink it: If mostly better-off families are using it, change how we reach people.
• Money and life skills for everyone
  • The idea: Teach interest, loans, credit cards, insurance, taxes, rent and job contracts with real practice. About half the states now require a personal finance course to graduate. Studies of those states find better credit scores and fewer high-cost loans among graduates.
  • First reaction: Students learn budgeting and contracts before they need them.
  • What could happen next:
    • A box to check: A dull lecture changes nothing. Use real practice, like budgeting for a first apartment or comparing two loan offers.
    • Materials written by the industry: Some free courses come from banks or lenders. Use independent materials.
  • What we'd watch: Young adults' credit scores, debt in collections and use of payday loans.
  • When we'd rethink it: If results don't improve compared with states without the course, redesign it.
• Know before you borrow
  • The idea: Career sampling for juniors and seniors, honest numbers on what each field pays, and a plain statement of what the payments would be on likely earnings before anyone takes a student loan. Too many students borrow for programs without knowing what they'll earn afterward.
  • First reaction: Students make better-informed choices. Some pick shorter or cheaper paths.
  • What could happen next:
    • Steering kids away from college: The goal is an informed choice, not talking kids out of it. Show the strong payoff of many degrees too.
    • Employers not taking part: Job sampling needs local employers. Small tax credits for hosting students help.
  • What we'd watch: Student debt compared with earnings, how many finish their programs, and whether jobs match what they studied.
  • When we'd rethink it: If debt compared with earnings doesn't improve, the information isn't reaching students in time.
• Trades as a first-class path
  • The idea: Far more vocational training and apprenticeships (see the full commitment). The trades need about 1.7 million new workers a year, and training programs turn out only about 55 for every 100 needed.
  • First reaction: More students choose apprenticeships, and employers find workers more easily.
  • What could happen next:
    • Seen as second best: Credits should count toward college too, so no door closes. Present the trades as a strong career, not a fallback.
    • Programs that don't match local jobs: Build programs with local employers and unions.
    • Not enough instructors: Experienced tradespeople can teach with simpler certification (see "Pass the wisdom on" in section 1).
  • What we'd watch: Apprenticeship sign-ups and how many finish, and wages after five years.
  • When we'd rethink it: If few finish, look at pay during training and mentor support.
• College that's worth it
  • The idea: Affordable, clear pricing, credits that transfer, and accountability for programs that leave students with debt and nothing to show for it. Some programs reliably leave graduates earning less than people who never enrolled.
  • First reaction: Better information on cost and results, and pressure on the worst programs.
  • What could happen next:
    • Colleges raising prices to capture aid: Research suggests some aid increases lead to higher tuition, especially at for-profit colleges. Tie aid to colleges' results, require clear pricing, and limit aid for programs whose graduates can't repay.
    • Closing useful programs that pay little: Teaching and social work pay modestly but they matter. Judge by whether graduates can repay, not by who earns the most.
  • What we'd watch: What students actually pay, how many finish, and debt compared with earnings.
  • When we'd rethink it: If what students pay keeps going up, put tighter limits on the aid formula.
• AI in school
  • The idea: Use AI as a tutor and helper, while making sure students still learn to think, write and check facts on their own. Early studies of AI tutors look promising, and AI is already in almost every student's pocket.
  • First reaction: Students use AI for help. Some use it to do their work for them.
  • What could happen next:
    • Letting AI do the thinking: Teach AI use openly, test writing and reasoning in class, and grade the process, not just the answer.
    • Privacy: Student data used by AI companies needs strict limits.
    • Unequal access: Make good tools available to every school.
  • What we'd watch: Writing and reasoning scores, and what students and teachers say in surveys.
  • When we'd rethink it: If writing and reasoning decline, compare classes with different AI rules to see whether AI is the cause before tightening in-class rules.

8. Energy, climate and the grid

Following the chain: paying utilities for low bills and reliability instead of big projects

• The idea: Many utilities earn a set profit on whatever they build, so building more is how they make money. Work with states to tie part of their profit to results instead. That means lower bills, fewer outages, fewer fires started and faster hookups for clean power.
• First reaction: Utilities look for cheaper fixes, like getting more out of the lines they have and using covered wires, plus burying lines where the risk is highest.
• What could happen next:
  • Skimping on maintenance: Hard safety minimums and inspections.
  • Gaming the scorecard: Independent data and public reporting.
  • Investors pulling back: Phase it in, and keep fair returns for real performance.
  • Public stakes: Clear rules on what the public share controls.
• What we'd watch: Bills compared with neighboring states, minutes of outage, fires caused by utilities, and how fast new connections happen.

Following the chain: public grades plus buying power

• The idea: Public grades for how companies do on climate, and people and institutions choosing to buy from the leaders.
• First reaction: Companies with good grades advertise them. The ones that lag attack the method.
• What could happen next:
  • Greenwashing: Some companies will dress up their numbers or push emissions onto overseas suppliers. The scorecard has to count supply chains and be audited.
  • Boycott fatigue: People get tired of boycotts that are too broad. Keep the list short.
  • Workers caught in the middle: Workers at lagging companies can get hurt. Demands should protect jobs and aim at the owners' decisions.
• What we'd watch: Emissions at graded companies and shifts in who sells the most.
• When we'd rethink it: If a campaign hurts workers more than owners, or isn't moving its target after a year.

Following the chain: a carbon fee with a transition fund

• The idea: A fee on fossil fuels where they come out of the ground or into the country, rising on a schedule. About 70% comes back as equal checks and 30% goes to a transition fund.
• First reaction: Dirtier energy costs more and cleaner choices get cheaper by comparison. Businesses invest in cutting emissions because they know the price will keep going up.
• What could happen next:
  • Anger over gas prices: People feel the price at the pump every week and the check only now and then. Pay the check monthly and show it in the same app or on the same statement.
  • Rural drivers and farmers: Long commutes and diesel equipment mean higher costs. The transition fund goes to them first, with help for efficient vehicles and equipment.
  • Factories moving overseas: The carbon fee at the border prevents this.
  • Shrinking revenue: As emissions fall, so do the checks and the fund. Plan for that from day one.
  • Price alone isn't enough: A fee doesn't build power lines or fix permitting. It works alongside everything else in this commitment.
• What we'd watch: Emissions by sector, energy costs by income and region, the size of the checks, manufacturing jobs and imports.

The other ideas in this section

• Build out renewables, storage and power lines
  • The idea: A huge build-out of solar, wind, geothermal and batteries, plus the long-distance power lines to move power from where it's made to where it's used. And clear the backlog of projects waiting to connect. At the end of 2024, roughly 2,300 gigawatts of generation and storage were waiting in line to connect to the grid. That's about twice the size of the entire U.S. power fleet. The typical project took about five years to get through (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab). The power is cheap. Getting it connected is the bottleneck.
  • First reaction: Developers race to build where the wind, sun and land are good. Utilities get pushed to handle connection requests faster.
  • What could happen next:
    • Local pushback on lines and farms: People don't want a power line through their land or a wind farm in their view. Pay host towns and landowners real, ongoing payments, and run lines along existing highways and rail where possible.
    • When the sun sets or the wind drops: More renewables need more storage, more lines between regions and some power that's always on. Plan for all three, not just cheap panels.
    • Supply chains: Much of our solar equipment comes from China. Building U.S. manufacturing (section 20) lowers that risk but can raise costs at first.
  • What we'd watch: Gigawatts connected each year, time waiting in line to connect, electricity prices and reliability.
  • When we'd rethink it: If connections don't speed up within two years, find where projects are stuck. It could be permits, equipment shortages, utility staffing or the line rules themselves. Only add federal backup authority if the line rules are the cause.
• Every proven option, including nuclear
  • The idea: Keep safe nuclear plants running. Judge new nuclear honestly on cost and timelines. Fund research on next-generation designs without betting the grid on them. License reviews run on fixed timelines, and a design approved once gets a shorter review for later plants that use it. Nuclear supplies about 18% of U.S. power and nearly half of its clean power, so closing working plants usually means burning more gas.
  • First reaction: Existing plants stay open longer, and developers propose small reactor designs.
  • What could happen next:
    • Cost overruns: Georgia's Vogtle units 3 and 4 came in at about $35 billion, more than double the original estimate, and seven years late. Public money for new plants only comes with cost controls, fixed milestones and shared risk.
    • Waste: The U.S. still has no permanent storage site. Progress on that has to be part of any expansion.
    • Betting on technology that isn't proven: Only count new designs as part of the plan once they're working.
  • What we'd watch: Cost per megawatt and schedules compared with plans, and plant closures.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the first new plants run far over budget again, stop public support past them.
• No bailouts without strings
  • The idea: When taxpayers fund or rescue a utility, the public gets something back. That could be an ownership stake, repayment or guaranteed lower rates. California's largest utility went through bankruptcy after its equipment caused deadly fires, and customers and taxpayers have carried much of the cost.
  • First reaction: Utilities lobby against conditions.
  • What could happen next:
    • Waiting for a crisis: Utilities may avoid help until disaster, then demand it anyway. Set the rules in law ahead of time, so every rescue comes with the same terms.
    • Investors pulling back: Stricter terms can raise what utilities pay to borrow. Utilities that perform can still earn fair returns.
  • What we'd watch: What the public gets back from any rescue, and rates afterward.
  • When we'd rethink it: If utilities can't raise money for needed safety work, the terms may be too harsh.
• Make big new users pay their way
  • The idea: Data centers and other big new users pay the full cost of the grid upgrades they need. Demand for electricity is rising for the first time in decades, mostly because of AI data centers. In some regions the cost of new lines and plants is being spread across household bills.
  • First reaction: Data center developers pay for their own upgrades and look for places with spare capacity.
  • What could happen next:
    • Moving to states with weaker rules: Set a national standard so states don't race to the bottom, and offer fast, clear terms to companies that pay.
    • Data centers building their own power: Some will build gas plants on site. That's fine for household bills, but it counts toward the climate checkpoints.
    • Flexible use: Data centers that can cut back during peak hours should pay less, which helps everyone.
  • What we'd watch: Household rates where data centers are growing, and upgrades paid for by big users.
  • When we'd rethink it: If household rates still rise faster where data centers cluster, tighten the cost rules.
• Fix methane leaks
  • The idea: Find and fix methane leaks from oil and gas operations, using satellite and on-site monitoring, with a fee for every ton leaked. Methane traps about 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide over 20 years. The International Energy Agency estimates about 40% of oil and gas methane could be cut at no net cost, because the captured gas can be sold.
  • First reaction: Companies fix the cheap leaks first and argue about the measurements.
  • What could happen next:
    • Gaps in measuring: Leaks from lots of small, old wells go unreported. Satellites now catch the big leaks. On-site checks cover the rest.
    • Orphaned wells: Many abandoned wells have no owner left to pay. Money to plug them also creates rural jobs.
  • What we'd watch: Measured methane by oil and gas region, using independent satellites.
  • When we'd rethink it: If measured methane doesn't fall within three years, raise the fee.
• A fair transition for rural and small users
  • The idea: Financing and incentives for heavy commercial users, like landscaping crews and fleets, to switch to cleaner equipment, while leaving occasional users alone (see the full commitment).
  • First reaction: Commercial crews switch with help. Occasional users don't notice any change.
  • What could happen next:
    • Equipment that isn't ready for heavy use: Battery equipment may not last a full commercial day yet. Phase it in by type of equipment, with rebates for extra batteries and longer timelines for heavy use.
    • Rural resentment: Rules that look like they were written by city people for city people cause backlash. Say clearly, in writing, who's exempt.
  • What we'd watch: How many commercial users switch, the costs crews report, and air quality.
  • When we'd rethink it: If crews say they're losing work, give them more time.
• EV chargers everywhere
  • The idea: Partner with private companies to put reliable chargers in towns, apartments, workplaces and along rural highways. Pay for results, not just for putting them in. Many public chargers are broken at any given time, and studies have found a large share of charging attempts at public stations fail.
  • First reaction: More chargers get built, especially where public money helps.
  • What could happen next:
    • Broken chargers: Public money requires chargers to be working nearly all the time, with penalties when they aren't.
    • Uneven coverage: Private companies build where it pays. Public money goes to rural highways and apartments.
  • What we'd watch: How many chargers are working, rural coverage and charging prices.
  • When we'd rethink it: If chargers keep going down, change who runs them.
• Get more out of the lines we already have
  • The idea: New high-capacity wires on existing towers, plus sensors and smarter controls, checked before any brand-new line. New wires can carry up to twice the power in the same corridor, usually for less than half the cost of a new line (UC Berkeley and GridLab, 2024).
  • First reaction: Utilities that earn a set profit on new building push back, since a cheaper fix earns them less.
  • What could happen next:
    • How utilities make money: Paying for results (above) rewards the cheaper fix. Utilities have to show they checked it before customers pay for a new line.
    • Towers that can't take new wire: Some old towers need rebuilding. That cost gets counted honestly in the comparison.
    • Not enough on its own: Existing routes don't reach every new wind and solar region. New lines still get built where they're the only way.
  • What we'd watch: Power added each year on existing lines, and cost per megawatt compared with new lines.
  • When we'd rethink it: If utilities rarely choose upgrades even when they're cheaper, the requirement needs teeth.
• Power lines that cross state lines
  • The idea: Routes mapped ahead of time along highways, rail and existing lines. Each state gets a firm window of about a year to decide, with written reasons. A federal decision only happens if that window is missed. The regions that gain from a line pay for it. And every region can share a set amount of power with its neighbors.
  • First reaction: Developers propose more lines between regions. States that gain little from a line passing through push back on any federal role.
  • What could happen next:
    • States' rights backlash: States keep the first and main say. The federal role only starts on a missed deadline. Host states get payments and the right to buy power from the line.
    • Landowners feeling run over: Payments every year the line runs, not one check. Routes along existing corridors. Eminent domain only as a last step after fair offers.
    • Who pays: If everyone's customers pay, people far away resent it. So the regions that gain pay in proportion to what they gain.
    • The fight moving to court: A shorter window to sue, and fixes that don't stop the whole project (see section 10).
  • What we'd watch: Miles of line built between regions, time from proposal to decision, power shared in emergencies, and landowner complaints.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the federal backup gets used a lot, the state windows or the payments are wrong. If it's never needed and lines still don't get built, the problem is who pays.
• Build the grid's equipment here
  • The idea: Long-term purchase commitments, standard designs, development bank loans for American factories, and a shared national reserve of spare large transformers. In 2025 large transformers took about two and a half years to arrive and cost about 77% more than in 2019 (Wood Mackenzie).
  • First reaction: Manufacturers expand when they can count on orders for several years.
  • What could happen next:
    • Higher costs at first: New plants may cost more early on. Standard designs and steady orders bring prices down.
    • Too many factories when the boom ends: Commitments run several years but are capped and tied to the grid plan.
    • A reserve that's hoarded or left to rot: Clear rules on who gets a spare, how fast it's replaced and who keeps the stock in shape.
  • What we'd watch: Transformer wait times and prices, how much is made in the U.S., and how long it takes to get power back after disasters.
  • When we'd rethink it: If wait times don't drop within three years, look further down the chain, at electrical steel and trained workers.
• Cheap power at home
  • The idea: Instant online permits for standard rooftop solar and batteries, a standard utility hookup on a deadline, legal plug-in balcony solar, and extra infrastructure money for towns that adopt instant permits. Home solar here costs roughly two to three times what it does in Australia, mostly because of paperwork.
  • First reaction: Installers grow where permits are instant and prices fall. Some towns don't want to lose permit fees and control.
  • What could happen next:
    • Safety: Instant permits only cover standard listed equipment from licensed installers, with spot inspections. Plug-in panels are capped in size and shut off automatically.
    • Who pays for poles and wires: If households with panels stop paying for the grid, the cost moves to neighbors without them. Everyone pays a fair grid charge, and power sent back gets credited at what it's really worth that hour.
    • Renters left out: Community solar subscriptions and plug-in panels give renters a way in.
  • What we'd watch: Permit times, installed cost per watt, and bills for households with and without solar.
  • When we'd rethink it: If costs don't fall toward other countries' prices, look next at sales and hookup costs.
• Keep the lights on in fire and storm country
  • The idea: Solar, batteries and microgrids for fire stations, hospitals, water plants and shelters in high-risk areas. Local microgrids for rural towns at the end of long lines, when that costs less than rebuilding the line. Backup batteries for people on medical equipment.
  • First reaction: Critical services keep running during shutoffs. Some utilities see microgrids at the end of the line as lost customers.
  • What could happen next:
    • Who owns and maintains them: Ownership is settled up front, often the utility or a co-op. Maintenance is written into the contract, and performance is published.
    • More shutoffs because backup exists: The number and length of shutoffs still count against a utility's results.
    • Batteries as a fire risk: Certified equipment, placement standards and fire service input on every site.
  • What we'd watch: Hours critical facilities lose power, and cost per town compared with rebuilding lines.
  • When we'd rethink it: If microgrids fail during real fires or storms, review the design standards.
• A climate target with checkpoints
  • The idea: Net zero by 2050, with checkpoints every five years. About 60% below 2005 levels by 2030 as a stretch goal, then about 70% by 2035, 80% by 2040 and 90% by 2045. The 2030 checkpoint is judged by what's been built: the connection backlog cleared, clean power added, and lines and transformers ordered. Consequences for missing an emissions checkpoint start in 2035. Today emissions are about 18% below 2005.
  • First reaction: Businesses get a schedule they can plan around, and investors fund the build-out the checkpoints call for. Some industries lobby to weaken the later checkpoints before they kick in.
  • What could happen next:
    • A target that can't be met: If 2030 were a hard emissions target, the penalties for missing it would fire on day one. The fee would go up before the grid could carry more clean power, raising bills without cutting much. Making 2030 a test of what's been built keeps the pressure where the real limit is.
    • Credibility: A stretch goal everyone expects to miss can teach people that targets don't matter. The council publishes the gap honestly every year, and 2035 is binding.
    • Bills rising faster than emissions fall: Affordability gets measured at every checkpoint, and the fee's checks go out before it goes up.
    • Offsets standing in for real cuts: Real cuts and removals get counted separately.
  • What we'd watch: Emissions by sector, how much of our power is clean, the connection backlog, clean power added each year, line and transformer orders, and household energy costs.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the build-out runs well ahead of plan, make 2030 binding after all. If it runs well behind, the council recommends changes to the fee, the standards or the build-out plan, instead of quietly moving the target.

9. Land, water, farms and rural life

Following the chain: paying farmers for measured stewardship

• The idea: A voluntary program that pays farmers per acre for results that are checked, like better soil carbon and water holding, less fertilizer runoff and more habitat. Free technical help gets them started.
• First reaction: Farmers try cover crops, better fertilizer timing and buffer strips with less money at risk. Water and soil get better.
• What could happen next:
  • The cost of measuring: Testing every field is expensive. Use sampling and models, and pay for the measuring separately.
  • Paying for what would happen anyway: Some farmers already do this. Reward early adopters too, so the people who went first aren't punished for it.
  • Big operations getting the money: Cap payments per operation, and set money aside for small and new farmers.
  • Food production: Taking land out of production can raise prices. Favor practices that keep land producing.
• What we'd watch: Acres signed up, soil and water test trends, farm income and who gets the payments.

The other ideas in this section

• Water that adds up
  • The idea: Count water savings across the whole river basin. Pay farmers for water that actually stays in the river or aquifer. And build water plans with farmers, towns and tribes at the same table. There's a well-known trap here. When a farm switches from flood irrigation to drip, it uses less water per acre. But the water that used to soak back into the ground or run back to the river doesn't anymore, and the farm often plants more acres. Total water use can stay the same or even go up. Researchers call this the irrigation efficiency paradox.
  • First reaction: Farmers and districts ask how the new accounting changes their rights and payments. Some see a chance to get paid for water they leave in the system.
  • What could happen next:
    • Farmers losing credit for real savings: If only "new" water counts, farmers who already conserve may feel punished. Pay for checked savings that leave the system, including from early adopters.
    • Fights over rights: Western water law runs on seniority, "first in time, first in right." Protect existing rights and use voluntary, paid deals, like paying farmers to leave land unplanted in dry years, instead of taking water.
    • Rural towns hurt when fields go dry: Farmworkers and local businesses lose income. Spread it across many farms and years, and support the towns affected.
  • What we'd watch: River flows, reservoir levels, groundwater levels, farm income and farm jobs in the areas affected.
  • When we'd rethink it: If groundwater keeps dropping where the program runs, the accounting is missing something or the payments are too low.
• Get ahead of wildfire
  • The idea: Treat fuels where it matters most, near homes, towns and critical infrastructure. Do a lot more prescribed and cultural burning with trained crews. Harden homes, keep evacuation routes clear, improve early detection, and fix pay and staffing at the federal fire agencies (see section 12). A century of putting out every fire, plus a hotter, drier climate, has left a lot of forests packed with fuel. The Forest Service has estimated tens of millions of acres need treatment, and we're treating a fraction of that.
  • First reaction: More thinning and prescribed burns, often starting near communities. Some residents welcome it. Others worry about smoke and burns getting away.
  • What could happen next:
    • Smoke: Prescribed fire makes smoke on purpose, on days picked for it. Wildfire makes far more smoke on the worst days. Give advance notice, help vulnerable people with air filters, and change smoke rules so planned burns aren't blocked while wildfire smoke goes uncounted.
    • Burns that get away: A planned burn that escapes, like the 2022 Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon fire in New Mexico, can wreck trust for years. Only burn in tight weather windows, with experienced burn bosses, enough holding crews and backup resources standing by.
    • Liability: Burn bosses and landowners face legal risk even when they follow the plan. Protecting burns that follow an approved plan, as some states already do, removes a big barrier.
    • Not enough crews: Fuels work and prescribed fire need crews year-round. Seasonal crews rebuilt every spring can't do this work in the off-season.
    • Homes still burn: Most homes are lost to embers, not walls of flame. Hardening homes and clearing space around them has to keep pace with the forest work.
  • What we'd watch: Acres treated near homes and kept up over time, how severe fires are where land was treated, homes lost, smoke days and burns that got away.
  • When we'd rethink it: If fires in treated areas burn as hot as untreated ones, change the kind of treatment or the follow-up maintenance.
• Safer power lines
  • The idea: Bury or harden power lines in high fire-risk rural areas, choosing whatever cuts the most risk per dollar on each stretch. Power lines have started some of the deadliest fires in the West, including the 2018 Camp Fire that destroyed Paradise, California, and killed 85 people.
  • First reaction: Utilities propose big programs to bury lines. Those pay off for them, because they earn a return on what they build (see section 8).
  • What could happen next:
    • Costs landing on rural customers: Burying lines can cost several million dollars a mile. Covered wire, better sensors and fast shut-off equipment often cut most of the risk for far less. Choose by how much risk each dollar cuts, stretch by stretch.
    • Shutting off power instead: Utilities may just cut power on windy days, leaving rural residents in the dark, including people on medical equipment. Limit shutoffs and require backup power help for vulnerable customers.
    • Slow progress: Publish each utility's progress on its highest-risk lines.
  • What we'd watch: Fires started by power lines, hours of shutoffs, and rates.
  • When we'd rethink it: If rates go up sharply without fewer fires starting, the utility is building the wrong things.
• Public lands for everyone
  • The idea: Keep public lands public, open for hunting, fishing, grazing and recreation, and pay for their long-term care. The national parks alone have a maintenance backlog of more than $20 billion.
  • First reaction: Access stays open. Hunters, anglers, ranchers and hikers find they're on the same side.
  • What could happen next:
    • Overcrowding: Some popular places get overrun. Only use permits or timed entry where crowding really damages the land, and steer visitors to lesser-known places.
    • Pressure to sell: Proposals to sell public land come back every few years. A clear rule against large sales protects access.
    • Uses that compete: Grazing, energy and recreation can clash. Local plans that bring everyone together work better than decisions made far away.
  • What we'd watch: Visitors, the maintenance backlog, and the condition of the land and habitat.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the land is getting worse, adjust how much use it gets.
• Honor tribal sovereignty
  • The idea: Treat tribal nations as governments with rights, with formal co-management agreements and money for land, water and fire. Tribes managed a lot of these lands for thousands of years, including with cultural burning.
  • First reaction: Tribes take on more management where they choose to. Some agencies resist sharing authority.
  • What could happen next:
    • Agencies slow to share authority: Formal agreements with clear roles and funding, not informal consultation.
    • Not enough money: Tribes can't take on management without the money that should come with it.
  • What we'd watch: Agreements signed, and how the land does under co-management.
  • When we'd rethink it: If agreements exist on paper but nothing changes, the money or the authority is missing.
• Keep rural towns alive
  • The idea: Rural broadband (see section 10), rural hospitals and clinics (see section 4), local schools and small businesses, focused on a few strong anchors in each region. Rural places lose their young people when there's no clinic, no school and no internet.
  • First reaction: New broadband, clinics and small businesses in places that had lost them.
  • What could happen next:
    • Money spread too thin: Small grants scattered everywhere don't change anything. Focus on a few anchors per region.
    • One-size rules: Programs written for cities don't fit small towns. Make applications simpler for small places.
  • What we'd watch: Rural population, businesses opening, and access to care and broadband.
  • When we'd rethink it: If people keep leaving places where anchors were funded, look at what else is missing. Often it's housing or jobs.
• Less waste and right to repair
  • The idea: Products that can be repaired, recycling that counts what's actually reused, and a legal right to repair your own equipment, including farm machinery. Farmers have been unable to fix their own tractors because manufacturers lock the software. That forces long waits for dealer repairs in the middle of harvest.
  • First reaction: Owners and independent shops fix their own equipment, and repairs cost less.
  • What could happen next:
    • Makers pointing to safety or security: Some of those claims are real, like emissions controls. Only allow narrow exceptions for proven safety risks.
    • Recycling that isn't: A lot of plastic "recycling" ends up in landfills or shipped overseas. Count what actually gets reused.
  • What we'd watch: Repair costs, how long equipment sits broken, and recycling rates.
  • When we'd rethink it: If repair costs don't come down, manufacturers are finding new ways to block repairs.

10. Infrastructure and building faster

Following the chain: a firm deadline on permit reviews

• The idea: Federal reviews of major infrastructure have to finish within two years, with one lead agency, a single combined review and a short window for lawsuits.
• First reaction: Projects start years sooner and cost less, because delay is one of the biggest drivers of cost.
• What could happen next:
  • Rubber-stamping: Agencies rush and miss real harm. Fund enough reviewers to meet the deadline properly.
  • Bad projects get through faster too: Speed helps every project, including harmful ones. Keep the core protections for water, health and endangered species.
  • The fight moving elsewhere: Opponents go to state courts or local rules. Coordinate with states.
  • Communities left out: Speed can squeeze out local voices. Bring in communities and tribes early, while their input can still change the design.
• What we'd watch: Time from proposal to construction, cost per mile, lawsuits filed and how they turn out, and environmental results after the work is done.

The other ideas in this section

• Build know-how inside government
  • The idea: Agencies hire and keep experienced engineers and project managers so they can design, price and oversee projects themselves instead of letting consultants define the job. The NYU Transit Costs Project found one of the clearest differences between low-cost countries and the U.S. Their agencies employ their own experts. American agencies often hand design and management to consultants who earn more when projects grow.
  • First reaction: Agencies try to hire engineers and project managers and run into pay limits.
  • What could happen next:
    • Can't match private pay: An experienced engineer can earn far more in the private sector. Competitive pay for technical jobs (see section 12) is the price of saving billions in overruns.
    • Consultants pushing back: Firms that profit from the way things work now will lobby against it. Keep using contractors to build, while agencies own the design and oversight.
    • It takes years to rebuild skill: Pair new hires with experienced staff, and share experts across agencies and states.
  • What we'd watch: Change orders, cost overruns, and how much design gets done in-house.
  • When we'd rethink it: If overruns don't drop on projects with strong in-house teams, the problem is somewhere else.
• Decide the scope early, then stick to it
  • The idea: Settle what a project will include before construction, use proven standard designs where they work, and coordinate moving pipes and power lines up front. Changes in the middle of a project are one of the biggest causes of cost overruns. Every change means redesign, new contracts and delays.
  • First reaction: Fewer redesigns partway through, and more pressure to get the plan right early.
  • What could happen next:
    • Early decisions missing local needs: If communities are only heard after the design is locked, they fight it later. Hear from communities and tribes before the scope is set, while their input can still change the plan.
    • Standard designs that don't fit: Allow exceptions with a written reason.
    • Political add-ons: Officials often add features late to win support. Require a public cost estimate for any change.
  • What we'd watch: How many projects finish with the scope they started with, and the cost of change orders.
  • When we'd rethink it: If projects still change a lot after approval, the early public input isn't working.
• Steady funding
  • The idea: Approved projects get funding for several years at a time so they don't stall halfway. Stop-and-start funding means crews get laid off, equipment sits, and contracts get rebid. All of that costs money.
  • First reaction: Projects finish without stalling. Contractors bid lower when they trust the money will come.
  • What could happen next:
    • Money locked into bad projects: Guaranteed funding can keep failing projects alive. Reviews at set points can stop projects that blow past their cost or schedule limits.
    • Less flexibility: Lawmakers lose some control year to year. That's the trade for finishing on time.
  • What we'd watch: Projects that stall, cost growth and bid prices.
  • When we'd rethink it: If projects funded this way run over as often as others, the reviews need teeth.
• Fix it first
  • The idea: Budget for maintenance based on the condition of what we already own, before paying for new projects. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a backlog of about $3.7 trillion over ten years. Putting off maintenance costs far more later. A bridge or pipe left to fail costs much more to replace than to keep up.
  • First reaction: More money goes to repairs, and there are fewer ribbon cuttings.
  • What could happen next:
    • Repair budgets getting raided: New projects get the attention, and maintenance gets cut when money is tight. Protect a repair budget set by the condition of what we own.
    • Results people don't see: Repairs don't win elections. Publish condition ratings so people can see the progress.
  • What we'd watch: Condition ratings for bridges, roads and water pipes, and water main breaks.
  • When we'd rethink it: If condition ratings keep dropping, the budget is too small.
• Match transportation to the place
  • The idea: Good roads and ways to get around in rural areas where people drive. Transit and walkable streets where they fit. Reliable EV charging everywhere (see section 8). A rural county and a dense city need different things, and national rules that ignore that waste money.
  • First reaction: Different answers for rural and urban areas, chosen locally.
  • What could happen next:
    • Fights over what counts as rural or urban: Let regional plans decide within national goals.
    • Transit nobody rides: Build transit where there are enough people to support it, and run existing lines more often before building new ones.
    • Road safety: About 40,000 people die on U.S. roads every year, far more per person than in other wealthy countries. Safer street design should be part of every project.
  • What we'd watch: Commute times, road deaths and transit ridership.
  • When we'd rethink it: If road deaths don't come down, the safety design isn't working.
• Broadband for every home
  • The idea: High-speed internet for every home, including rural areas. Providers get paid based on tested speeds, not advertised ones. Broadband is now needed for school, work, telehealth and running a farm or small business.
  • First reaction: Providers build to fill the gaps where public money helps.
  • What could happen next:
    • Maps that overstate coverage: Old federal maps counted a whole area as covered if one home could get service. Pay on tested speeds at real addresses.
    • Slow rollout: The $42 billion BEAD program passed in 2021 took years to start building. Simpler rules and faster approvals.
    • Service people can't afford: Coverage means little if people can't pay for it. Low-cost plans should come with public money.
  • What we'd watch: Measured speeds by county, homes connected and prices.
  • When we'd rethink it: If rural homes still don't have service after funding, the technology may be wrong. Satellite or fixed wireless may fit better.
• Good jobs tied to apprenticeships
  • The idea: Infrastructure work is tied to apprenticeships (see section 7) and paid public work (see section 5), so projects train the next generation of skilled workers.
  • First reaction: More apprentices on job sites. Contractors build training into their bids.
  • What could happen next:
    • Worker shortages delaying projects: There aren't enough skilled workers for a big build-out. Start training before major projects, not during them.
    • Higher costs: Training adds some cost. Fewer shortages later make up for it.
  • What we'd watch: Apprentice hours, how many finish, and project delays caused by worker shortages.
  • When we'd rethink it: If shortages still hold up projects, start training earlier and train more people.
• Hear everyone, then decide
  • The idea: Standards set ahead of time. A set window for people to be heard and win changes or compensation. A named final decision-maker. A short appeal period. And real benefits for places that carry the local costs (see the full commitment). Today one determined opponent can hold up a project for years with repeated hearings and lawsuits, even when most residents support it.
  • First reaction: Projects that meet the standards move faster. Opponents focus on shaping projects early instead of stopping them late.
  • What could happen next:
    • Communities feeling steamrolled: If input never changes anything, trust collapses and opposition hardens. Show what changed because of public input, and make the benefits real and local.
    • Bad projects pushed through: Speed only applies to projects that meet health, safety and environmental standards set ahead of time.
    • Who decides: A named authority that answers to voters, often a state or regional body for projects that benefit a whole region.
  • What we'd watch: Time to a final decision, appeals filed and won, and how satisfied locals are after it's built.
  • When we'd rethink it: If most communities that host projects still feel ignored after they're built, the benefits or the input process need work.
• Get the lead out
  • The idea: Replace every lead water pipe within ten years, the whole line from the main to the house, free to the owner. Fix lead paint first in homes with young children, starting with low-income families. Test every child's blood lead at ages 1 and 2. Every dollar spent on lead pipes and paint returns roughly $1.33 to $1.39 (Pew Health Impact Project, 2017).
  • First reaction: Cities with the most lead pipes hire crews. Homeowners sign up because it's free. Some landlords don't respond.
  • What could happen next:
    • Partial replacements that make water worse: Only full replacements count, with free filters and water tests during and after the work.
    • Landlords who don't answer: Towns can do the work after giving notice, and tenants get filters in the meantime.
    • Lead dust from paint work: Certified crews, dust tests before families move back in, and paid temporary housing during big jobs.
    • Rents going up after the repairs: Grants come with steady rents for a set time.
    • Not enough trained crews: Apprenticeships (see section 7), and contracts that do whole blocks at once, which also lowers the cost per home.
    • Pipes nobody counted: Thousands of towns sent in blank counts. They have to inspect, and money follows the lead lines they actually find.
  • What we'd watch: Lead lines left by town, children's blood lead levels, cost per line and water tests after the work.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the cost per line stays far above what the best towns pay, change how the work is contracted. If children's levels don't drop in the hardest-hit places, look at paint, soil and other sources.

11. Technology, AI and media

Following the chain: industry-built AI standards, backed by law

• The idea: Industry, researchers, workers and public experts write standards together. Congress makes the core ones binding for high-stakes uses, and companies that follow them get legal safe harbor.
• First reaction: Rules written by people who understand the technology, moving faster than Congress could.
• What could happen next:
  • Big companies writing rules that suit them: Scale what's required by risk and company size, and give independent members real votes.
  • Safe harbor used as a shield: It covers following the process, not hiding problems you knew about.
  • Falling behind the technology: Review standards on a fixed schedule.
  • Work moving abroad: Work with allies, and keep low-risk uses free.
• What we'd watch: Incidents and appeals in high-stakes systems, how many new AI companies start, and how long it takes to update standards.

The other ideas in this section

Technology changes fast, so these chains need checking more often than most.

• Push the envelope: research and public computing
  • The idea: Fund basic research, shared public computing for universities and startups, open standards and strong cybersecurity. Training a leading AI model now costs hundreds of millions of dollars or more in computing alone. Most university researchers and new companies can't compete or even study the most capable systems. The internet, GPS and the basic science behind a lot of modern medicine all started with public research.
  • First reaction: Universities and startups get computing power and data they couldn't afford, and more research gets done.
  • What could happen next:
    • Money going to the same few big players: Large institutions are best at winning grants. Weight grants toward new and smaller teams, and spread them across regions.
    • Research leaking to rivals: Open research can help competitors like China. Keep basic research open while protecting specific work that matters for security.
    • Picking winners: Government is bad at betting on specific companies. Fund shared tools and basic science, not particular companies.
  • What we'd watch: Startups formed, research published, use of public computing and where grants go.
  • When we'd rethink it: If most computing time goes to a handful of institutions, change how it's handed out.
• Stricter rules where the stakes are high
  • The idea: AI that makes decisions about health, jobs, loans, benefits, policing or infrastructure needs testing, a named company that's responsible, incident reporting and a real appeal to a person who can change the outcome. Low-risk uses stay free. Automated systems already decide who gets an interview, a loan or a benefit. When they're wrong, people often can't find out why or reach anyone who can fix it. Michigan's automated unemployment fraud system wrongly accused tens of thousands of people of fraud between 2013 and 2015.
  • First reaction: Companies selling high-stakes AI add testing and appeals. Some argue the rules slow them down.
  • What could happen next:
    • Rules only big companies can meet: Heavy compliance costs can lock out startups. Scale the rules to risk and size, and offer templates and shared testing for small companies.
    • Deciding what's "high stakes": Draw the line by what the decision does to a person, not by the technology used.
    • Rubber-stamp appeals: An appeal to a person who just clicks "approve" is no appeal. Reviewers need real authority, and we'd track how often they change outcomes.
  • What we'd watch: Errors found, appeals filed and won, and how many companies offer high-stakes AI.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the number of providers drops sharply, find out who left and why. Small companies closing over compliance costs would mean the rules are too heavy. Mergers, or weak providers leaving as the market matures, would mean something else. Exit surveys and compliance cost data can tell them apart.
• Competition and antitrust
  • The idea: Review purchases of fast-growing startups by dominant platforms. Judge harm by lost competition, privacy and quality. Require that people can take their data with them. And bar platforms from favoring their own products (see the full commitment). A few companies control search, app stores, social media and cloud computing, and a lot of promising startups get bought before they can become rivals.
  • First reaction: Dominant platforms fight the rules in court and in Congress. Startups and smaller rivals welcome them.
  • What could happen next:
    • Slow court cases and weak fixes: Cases take years, and markets move on. Clear rules written ahead of time, like no favoring your own products and letting people take their data, work faster than one lawsuit at a time.
    • Fewer startups if founders can't sell: Getting bought is a common payoff for startups. Reviews only target purchases by dominant platforms in their own markets, and leave most deals alone.
    • Security risks from opening platforms up: Making platforms work together needs security standards, set with independent experts.
  • What we'd watch: Market shares, new competitors, startup funding, and prices for business users like app developers.
  • When we'd rethink it: If startup funding drops sharply, the review rules may be too broad.
• Honest labels
  • The idea: Clear labels on AI-made media used to persuade, on paid political content, and on bots posing as people. Enforcement focuses on fraud, impersonation and fake engagement. Voice-clone scams and fake political robocalls are already here. In 2024, an AI-made call imitating the president's voice told New Hampshire voters to skip the primary.
  • First reaction: Political ads and large accounts add labels. Bad actors look for ways around them.
  • What could happen next:
    • Labels ignored: People quickly learn to tune out labels. Focus on the most harmful cases, like impersonation and fraud, with real penalties.
    • Used to wave off true content: Real videos can be called fake. That's why a label isn't proof, and why the rules go after people who make fakes, not every post.
    • Free speech: The rules cover paid persuasion and impersonation, not opinions or satire.
  • What we'd watch: Complaints, enforcement cases and money lost to impersonation fraud.
  • When we'd rethink it: If enforcement only catches small players, the rules need sharper tools for the big ones.
• Your data, your feed
  • The idea: Real privacy protections that limit what gets collected by default, control over your own data, feed options not ranked by outrage, and protection for kids from designs built to hook them. The U.S. still has no general federal privacy law, so companies can collect and sell detailed data about your location, health and habits.
  • First reaction: Companies offer privacy settings and lobby for weak rules.
  • What could happen next:
    • Consent pop-ups everyone clicks through: Asking permission for everything trains people to click "accept." Privacy by default, with simple choices for the few things that matter, works better.
    • Free services starting to charge: Some services may charge if they can't sell data. Many people would choose that, and free options supported by less invasive ads will still be around.
    • Kids' rules that require ID from everyone: Age rules can turn into ID checks for every user. Use design rules instead, like no endless scroll on minors' accounts.
  • What we'd watch: Data collected and sold, data breaches, and how many people change their settings.
  • When we'd rethink it: If data collection doesn't drop, check whether companies are leaning on exceptions or nudging people to opt back in, before strengthening the defaults.
• No ID to speak
  • The idea: Nobody has to hand over ID to post online. Anonymous speech has protected whistleblowers, dissidents and abuse survivors, and the Supreme Court has long protected anonymous political writing.
  • First reaction: Anonymous speech stays protected. Some argue that makes abuse and bots worse.
  • What could happen next:
    • More bots and abuse: Go after paid bot networks, repeat abuse and fraud. Those can be found by how accounts behave instead of by checking everyone's ID.
    • ID databases as targets: Any database of verified users could be hacked or misused. That's a reason not to build one.
  • What we'd watch: How much activity comes from bots, harassment reports, and enforcement against bot networks.
  • When we'd rethink it: If bot networks keep growing despite enforcement, look at verification for large accounts only.
• Count the physical cost
  • The idea: Data centers report their power and water use and pay their own way on the grid (see section 8). A large data center can use as much power as a small city, and some use a lot of water for cooling in dry regions.
  • First reaction: Data centers report their use, and some move toward cooling that uses less water.
  • What could happen next:
    • Vague reports: Require standard reporting with independent checks.
    • Local water fights: In dry regions, local approval should weigh the water supply.
  • What we'd watch: Power and water use per data center, and local water and power prices.
  • When we'd rethink it: If local water or power problems keep coming up, add limits in stressed regions.
• Creators paid for training data
  • The idea: A clear licensing path with collective payment for creators, disclosure of what AI was trained on, the right to opt out, and a ban on AI copying a person's voice or likeness without consent (see the full commitment). Writers, artists, musicians and photographers see their work used to build products that compete with them, often without permission or pay.
  • First reaction: Licensing deals spread, mostly with big publishers and labels.
  • What could happen next:
    • Only big rights holders get paid: Collective licensing, like the system that pays songwriters when their music plays on the radio, can pay individual creators too.
    • AI development moving abroad: Licensing costs could push training to countries with looser rules. Apply the rules to AI sold in the U.S.
    • Opt-outs that don't work: Opting out has to be simple and respected, with penalties for ignoring it.
  • What we'd watch: Licensing payments to individual creators, how many opt out, and what AI products are available in the U.S.
  • When we'd rethink it: If individual creators see little money after several years, redesign the collective system.

12. Government that works

Following the chain: letting agencies keep part of what they save

• The idea: An agency that ends the year under budget keeps a share of the savings, say a quarter to half, for approved upgrades. The savings have to be checked independently.
• First reaction: The year-end spending rush slows down. Managers have a reason to find savings instead of hiding them.
• What could happen next:
  • Fake savings: Putting off maintenance or leaving jobs empty looks like saving. Only count savings where service held steady or got better.
  • Padded budgets: Compare requests with the actual workload.
  • Hoarding: Cap how much carries over, and set a time limit.
  • Congress losing control: Congress authorizes it, with public reports.
• What we'd watch: How much gets spent in the last month of the year, checked savings, service times and maintenance backlogs.

The other ideas in this section

• Pay to compete for talent
  • The idea: Competitive pay for hard-to-fill and technical jobs, faster hiring, real career paths, and a fair, fast way to deal with poor performance. Start with the federal wildland fire workforce. The federal government takes about 100 days on average to hire someone, roughly twice as long as private companies, and good candidates take other offers in the meantime. In wildland fire, crews lose experienced squad bosses and captains to state and local departments that pay for every hour worked and offer better retirement. Every experienced person who leaves takes years of judgment with them. On the fireline that's a safety issue, not just a budget line.
  • First reaction: Better applicants for hard-to-fill jobs, fewer experienced people leaving, and pushback from people who see higher pay as waste.
  • What could happen next:
    • Higher payroll with no better results: Raising pay across the board can cost a lot without fixing the jobs that matter. Start with the hard-to-fill jobs, and track whether openings and turnover actually go down.
    • Agencies poaching from each other: If one agency raises pay, others lose people. Coordinate pay for similar jobs across agencies, the way the new combined wildland fire service should.
    • Dealing with poor performers: Today it takes months or years to remove a federal employee for poor performance, and that wears down the people doing good work. Faster, fair processes, with real protection against political firing.
    • Hiring by loyalty: Speed can't mean hiring by loyalty. Keep hiring based on merit, and test applicants on real job skills.
  • What we'd watch: Time to hire, openings and turnover in critical jobs, and for fire crews, how many experienced leaders come back each season.
  • When we'd rethink it: If turnover doesn't drop within two years, ask the people leaving what's still driving them out. Usually it's housing, schedules or leadership as well as pay.
• Partner with industry the smart way
  • The idea: Field-test private technology against real needs, learn from industry leaders, and write requirements around results instead of rigid specs. Never let one company write the rules or lock the government in. Government projects often fail because the agency writes thousands of pages of specs before anyone tests whether the thing works, then gets stuck with one vendor. The 2013 launch of HealthCare.gov is the best-known example. A small team of experienced engineers working in short, tested steps rescued it.
  • First reaction: Agencies field-test tools before buying, and companies compete on results.
  • What could happen next:
    • Locked in to one vendor: Once data and systems depend on one company, switching is expensive. Every contract requires open standards, government ownership of its own data, and a way out.
    • Buying flashy tools nobody needs: Test against the real problem, with the people who'll use the tool, before buying a lot of it.
    • Revolving door: Officials who manage contracts later go to work for the contractors. Waiting periods and disclosure rules.
  • What we'd watch: Tools adopted after field trials, contract costs, failed projects and time to deliver.
  • When we'd rethink it: If field trials keep favoring the same few vendors, the trials may be tilted toward them.
• Ask the frontline
  • The idea: Before a new mandate goes out, test it with the people who have to carry it out. People on the ground often know right away why a rule won't work, and nobody asks them. Firefighters, nurses, teachers and clerks spend hours on reporting that helps no one.
  • First reaction: Mandates get tested and fixed before rollout, and frontline workers feel heard.
  • What could happen next:
    • Testing slowing urgent changes: A short, fixed testing window, with an emergency path for safety rules.
    • Feedback ignored: Publish what changed because of frontline input, what didn't, and why.
    • Only the loudest voices heard: Test with a representative group of workers, not just volunteers.
  • What we'd watch: Mandates changed after testing, how many follow them, and time spent on reporting.
  • When we'd rethink it: If people still aren't following the rule after testing, the rule may be what's wrong, not the workers.
• Audit results, not just spending
  • The idea: Independent audits that track whether programs actually work, starting with the problems GAO already flags (see the full commitment). Today audits mostly check that money was spent as approved, not whether it did any good.
  • First reaction: Programs get measured on results. Those that can't show any face pressure.
  • What could happen next:
    • Agencies gaming the measures: Any single measure gets gamed. Use several measures, independent auditors and spot checks.
    • Good programs with results that are hard to measure: Prevention work, like fuel reduction, shows its value in fires that don't happen. Use the best evidence available, not just short-term numbers.
    • Reports nobody acts on: Agencies have to answer each finding publicly, by a deadline.
  • What we'd watch: Programs fixed or ended after audits, and checked savings.
  • When we'd rethink it: If findings pile up and nothing happens, the requirement to answer needs teeth.
• Learn from failure
  • The idea: Report problems and near misses without fear of punishment for honest mistakes. Find root causes and fix the system, while still holding misconduct accountable. Aviation became one of the safest ways to travel largely because pilots and controllers can report mistakes and close calls without being punished, and those reports get used to fix the system. Wildland fire does something similar with its lessons-learned reviews.
  • First reaction: More problems and near misses get reported. Early on it can look like things are getting worse.
  • What could happen next:
    • Reports used to blame people: If one honest report leads to punishment, reporting stops. Protect honest mistakes, with a firm line at reckless or willful acts.
    • More reports mistaken for failure: More reports usually mean more honesty, not more problems. Explain that to the public and to Congress.
    • Root causes that point up the chain: Many failures trace back to leadership decisions or rules. The review has to be allowed to say so.
  • What we'd watch: Reports filed, fixes made, and incidents that happen again.
  • When we'd rethink it: If reports drop after someone gets punished in a high-profile case, people don't trust the protection.
• Open the books, protect whistleblowers
  • The idea: Publish contracts, costs and results in formats people can search, and protect whistleblowers and inspectors general. Sunlight is cheap and it works. Many of the biggest frauds were exposed by insiders.
  • First reaction: Contracts and costs get published, and watchdogs and reporters start using the data.
  • What could happen next:
    • Data dumps nobody can use: Standard formats people can search.
    • Retaliation: Whistleblowers often get fired or harassed. Real penalties for retaliation, and independent inspectors general who can't be fired for political reasons.
  • What we'd watch: How much the data gets used, and whistleblower cases and how they turn out.
  • When we'd rethink it: If whistleblower cases drop while problems continue, people are afraid to report.
• Services that are easy to use
  • The idea: Government services that are simple to use online and in person, with a real person available when it matters. Filling out a government form shouldn't take a lawyer. Many people give up on benefits they're owed because the process is too hard.
  • First reaction: More people finish applications online, and wait times drop.
  • What could happen next:
    • People without internet left out: Keep in-person and phone help with a real person.
    • Automated systems wrongly denying people: See the rules on high-stakes AI in section 11.
  • What we'd watch: Wait times, how many finish by each route, and how satisfied people are.
  • When we'd rethink it: If fewer older or rural people finish, expand in-person help.

13. Democracy, elections and courts

Following the chain: full disclosure of political ad money

• The idea: Any group that spends more than a set amount on political ads has to name its top donors, including where the money really came from when it passes through nonprofits or companies.
• First reaction: Voters can see who's trying to persuade them. Some donors pull back from attack ads they don't want their names on.
• What could happen next:
  • Money going underground: It shifts to issue ads, influencers or channels nobody can trace. Cover paid online influencers too, and enforce it.
  • Small donors getting harassed: Disclosure can expose ordinary people to retaliation. Set the threshold high enough to protect small donors.
  • Court challenges: Disclosure has held up better in court than spending limits, but it has to be written carefully.
  • Enforcement: The Federal Election Commission often deadlocks. Fix how it's set up so it can act.
• What we'd watch: How much political spending has known sources, enforcement actions, and how court cases turn out.

The other ideas in this section

Everything here has to answer one question. Would we accept it if the people we trust least were running it?

• Undo Citizens United over time
  • The idea: Work toward a constitutional amendment, or a future Court ruling, that lets Congress and states set reasonable limits on political spending. Meanwhile, push disclosure and enforcement now. The 2010 Citizens United decision, and a lower-court ruling that followed it, allowed unlimited outside spending through super PACs. Outside spending in federal elections has grown from a few hundred million dollars a cycle before 2010 to several billion in recent cycles (OpenSecrets).
  • First reaction: Amendment campaigns start, and states pass resolutions calling for one. About two dozen already have.
  • What could happen next:
    • It takes decades: An amendment needs two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states. In the meantime, disclosure and small-donor matching do what they can now.
    • Free speech worries: People on both sides worry limits will be used against unpopular voices. The amendment should be narrow. It covers spending on elections, not news, books or speech about issues. And it has to be something we'd accept with the other side in charge.
    • Money finding new channels: It always does. Disclosure has to cover influencers and online ads too.
  • What we'd watch: Outside spending, how much of it has known donors, and how many states support an amendment.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the amendment stalls for a decade, lean harder on public financing and disclosure, which don't need one.
• Small donors count more
  • The idea: Match small donations with public money, or give voters vouchers, the way New York City and Seattle do, so candidates can run without depending on big donors. When candidates raise money mostly from big donors, they spend their time with big donors and hear what big donors care about.
  • First reaction: More candidates run on small donations, including people who couldn't have run before.
  • What could happen next:
    • Public cost: New York City's program costs a few dollars per resident per year. A national program would cost more, but it's small compared with what's at stake.
    • Fringe candidates gaming the match: A minimum number of local donors to qualify, and spending caps for candidates who take matching money.
    • Fraud: Fake donors could be used to collect matches. Audit and verify donors.
  • What we'd watch: How many people donate, how much of the money comes from small gifts, and how varied the candidates are.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the matching money mostly goes to incumbents, change the design.
• No individual stock trading in Congress
  • The idea: Members, their spouses and dependent children can't own or trade individual stocks while in office. Broad funds and blind trusts are fine. Members vote on laws and get briefings that move markets. A 2012 law requires them to report trades within 45 days, and it's broken often with small penalties. Polls find large majorities in both parties support a ban.
  • First reaction: Members move their holdings into broad funds or blind trusts. Some leaders push back.
  • What could happen next:
    • Hidden holdings: Members could hold stock through relatives or shell companies. Cover spouses, dependents and anything they control, with audits and real penalties.
    • Fewer candidates with money: Some may decide not to run. Letting them sell into a fund without paying capital gains tax right away, as the Ethics in Government rules allow for some officials, takes away most of that cost.
    • Other conflicts: Real estate and private businesses are still there. Disclosure rules still apply.
  • What we'd watch: Violations, penalties, and trading patterns around key votes.
  • When we'd rethink it: If violations are common, raise the penalties.
• Easy to vote, hard to cheat
  • The idea: Free, easy-to-get voter ID, paper ballot backups and audits, along with early voting and mail options. Both sides have real worries. One fears fraud. The other fears eligible voters getting blocked. Doing both answers each.
  • First reaction: Free ID and paper backups roll out, along with early voting.
  • What could happen next:
    • ID rules that block eligible voters: Some citizens don't have ID, often older, rural or low-income people. Make ID free and easy to get, including mobile offices, and allow a sworn statement or provisional ballot as a backup.
    • Mail ballots and mistakes: Mail ballots get rejected more often over signatures or timing. Let voters fix mistakes.
    • Audits that sow doubt: Partisan "audits" can undermine trust. Use standard, independent audits after elections, with observers from both parties.
  • What we'd watch: Turnout by group, rejected ballots, documented fraud cases, and trust in elections in both parties.
  • When we'd rethink it: If turnout drops among people without ID, compare with similar places that didn't change their rules. That tells you whether the ID rule caused it or something else did, like a less competitive race. If it was the rule, fix the backup options.
• Open primaries
  • The idea: Let independents vote in primaries, or use a single primary for all candidates, so candidates have to appeal to everyone. Most districts are safe for one party, so the real election is the primary. Turnout there is often 20% or less, and the most partisan voters dominate. Tens of millions of voters registered as independents or with no party can't vote in their state's primaries at all.
  • First reaction: Candidates appeal to more voters. Parties push back on losing control.
  • What could happen next:
    • Splitting the vote in crowded races: With lots of candidates, two from the same side can split the vote and let a less popular candidate win. Pair open primaries with ranked-choice voting.
    • Parties going to court: Parties argue they have a right to pick their own nominees. Use designs that have held up, like the top-two and top-four systems.
  • What we'd watch: Competitive races, primary turnout, and how often winners work across party lines.
  • When we'd rethink it: If open primaries don't change who wins after several elections, look at other things, like how districts are drawn.
• Ranked-choice voting
  • The idea: Voters rank candidates in order. If nobody has a majority, the last-place candidate drops out and their voters' next choices get counted, until someone wins with a majority. You can vote for who you actually like without "wasting" your vote. Maine and Alaska use it for some statewide elections, and many cities use it locally.
  • First reaction: Voters rank more than one candidate, and more candidates run.
  • What could happen next:
    • Confusion: Some voters may find it confusing at first. Surveys where it's used find most voters understand it. Voter education helps.
    • Slower counts: Results may take days. Tested counting systems and clear timelines.
    • Repeal campaigns: Alaska barely kept its system in a 2024 repeal vote. Explain results honestly to keep people's trust.
  • What we'd watch: Ballot errors, time to results, and how satisfied voters are.
  • When we'd rethink it: If a place has a lot of ballot errors, improve the ballot design and education.
• Independent redistricting
  • The idea: Independent commissions draw district lines instead of the party in power. Gerrymandering lets politicians choose their voters, so many districts are decided before anyone votes.
  • First reaction: Fairer maps and more competitive districts where commissions are used.
  • What could happen next:
    • Partisans taking over commissions: Balanced membership that includes independents, open hearings and clear rules, like keeping communities together.
    • One side disarming alone: If only some states use commissions, the other side gains. Push for a national standard, or states adopting in pairs.
  • What we'd watch: Competitive districts, and how closely seats match votes.
  • When we'd rethink it: If commission maps still favor one side, fix the rules they draw by.
• Term limits for Congress
  • The idea: Limit how long members can serve, through a constitutional amendment. The goal is to bring in new people and loosen the grip of career incumbents and lobbyists. Polls keep finding around 8 in 10 Americans support term limits.
  • First reaction: More turnover and more open seats.
  • What could happen next:
    • Power shifting to staff and lobbyists: Research on state term limits finds that when members are new, more power goes to lobbyists and long-serving staff. Pair limits with better pay for experienced staff and limits on lobbying.
    • Losing expertise: Set limits long enough to build real skill, like 12 years in each chamber.
  • What we'd watch: Lobbying spending, bills passed, and how experienced committee leaders are.
  • When we'd rethink it: If lobbyists' influence grows sharply, strengthen the lobbying rules.
• Local caucuses and town meetings
  • The idea: Bring neighbors together in person to talk and decide, with remote or absentee options for people who can't be there.
  • First reaction: Neighbors meet face to face, and some find common ground.
  • What could happen next:
    • People with night jobs or kids can't come: That's the main weakness of caucuses. Add remote and absentee options, childcare and more than one session.
    • Loud voices taking over: Trained moderators and structured formats.
  • What we'd watch: Who comes, by age and job, and how people feel about the result.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the crowd is mostly older or wealthier, ask the people who stayed home why. It could be meeting times, childcare, rides or just interest. Fix whatever's failing.
• Courts that respect precedent, 18-year terms
  • The idea: Binding ethics rules for justices, nine seats, and staggered 18-year terms with one appointment every two years, by constitutional amendment (see the full commitment). Today, when a justice retires or dies is often down to chance or strategy, and that turns every opening into a political war.
  • First reaction: Confirmations become more routine and less of a do-or-die fight.
  • What could happen next:
    • Hard to pass: An amendment is hard. Building support across parties takes time, and the change only works if it's neutral. That's why it phases in as seats open, so no sitting justice is forced out.
    • Fights over the switch: Who gets the first appointments matters. A fixed schedule, set before anyone knows who'll be president, helps.
    • Enforcing ethics: Rules need someone to enforce them. A panel of senior judges can review complaints.
  • What we'd watch: Confirmation fights, public trust in the Court, and how often precedent gets overturned.
  • When we'd rethink it: If confirmations stay just as bitter after the change, look at other reforms.
• Access to justice
  • The idea: Legal help for people who can't afford it, especially in eviction and family cases. In most eviction cases the landlord has a lawyer and the tenant doesn't. Where cities have given tenants lawyers, like New York City, most tenants who had one stayed in their homes.
  • First reaction: More people get legal help, and some cases settle more fairly.
  • What could happen next:
    • Not enough lawyers: Fund legal aid, and train non-lawyer advocates for simpler cases.
    • Landlords' costs going up: Some argue it raises the cost of renting. Fairer outcomes mostly cut down evictions that shouldn't happen.
  • What we'd watch: How many people have a lawyer, and how cases turn out.
  • When we'd rethink it: If outcomes don't improve with lawyers, look at the laws, not just the lawyers.
• Elections run well and settled fairly
  • The idea: Automatic, accurate registration. Paper records and routine audits. Protection and funding for election workers. Published rules for disputes. And fixed deadlines for counting, certifying and seating winners (see the full commitment). In the Brennan Center's 2024 survey, 38% of local election officials said they'd been threatened, harassed or abused, and many experienced officials have quit.
  • First reaction: Counties get the money and staff to run elections properly, and fewer officials quit.
  • What could happen next:
    • Seen as a federal takeover: States run elections. Federal money comes with a few clear standards, like paper records and audits, not federal control.
    • Cleaning up voter rolls used to purge eligible voters: Careful, published rules, notice to voters and a chance to fix mistakes.
    • Certification fights anyway: Officials who refuse to certify lawful results face fast court orders and penalties.
  • What we'd watch: Election officials quitting, threats reported, audit results, and trust in elections among voters of both parties.
  • When we'd rethink it: If trust doesn't improve among the side that lost, ask what evidence would convince them, and provide it.

14. Justice and public safety

Following the chain: crisis teams for mental health calls

• The idea: Fund trained mental health teams that 911 and 988 can send to calls where there's no weapon and no immediate danger. Fund places to stabilize people, and follow-up care.
• First reaction: Police spend fewer hours on calls they aren't trained for. Fewer of those calls end in arrest, injury or a night in jail.
• What could happen next:
  • Calls that turn dangerous: Clear rules for when police back up the team, and shared radios.
  • Nowhere to take people: Fund stabilization centers and treatment along with the teams.
  • Rural gaps: Regional teams and telehealth.
  • Staffing: Training pipelines and loan forgiveness for mental health workers.
• What we'd watch: Response times, injuries, repeat calls, arrests and ER visits for the same people, and officer hours freed up.

The other ideas in this section

• Police focused on serious harm
  • The idea: Put violence, exploitation, trafficking and theft first. Good training, supervision and pay. Real accountability for misconduct. More detectives so more crimes get solved. Research keeps finding that the certainty of getting caught deters crime far more than the length of a sentence. Today only about 6 in 10 murders get solved, so a lot of offenders can reasonably expect to get away with it.
  • First reaction: More detective work on violent cases and more cases solved. Officers spend less time on calls others can handle.
  • What could happen next:
    • More low-level disorder: If minor problems get ignored, people feel less safe and trust falls. Use other responses, like crisis teams, code enforcement and community programs, instead of ignoring them.
    • Recruiting and keeping officers: Many departments are short-staffed. Better pay and training, and taking non-police calls off their plate, make the job more attractive.
    • Accountability seen as anti-police: Clear standards and fair discipline protect good officers too. They're what earns public cooperation, and that's what actually solves cases.
  • What we'd watch: How many violent crimes get solved, response times, use of force, and what residents say about safety and trust.
  • When we'd rethink it: If more cases don't get solved after adding detectives, look at how cases are managed and whether witnesses trust police enough to come forward.
• Phase out for-profit prisons
  • The idea: End contracts with private prison companies on a schedule, and hold every prison, public or private, to strict standards with independent inspections. About 8% of people in U.S. prisons are held in private facilities, and a much larger share of immigration detainees. When a company gets paid per occupied bed, it profits from more people held longer. That's the opposite of rehabilitation.
  • First reaction: Contracts end as they come up, and the companies lobby to keep them.
  • What could happen next:
    • Crowding or higher costs in public prisons: If beds disappear faster than the prison population shrinks, public prisons get overcrowded. Phase out as space allows, along with sentencing and reentry reforms that bring the numbers down.
    • Private companies in other roles: Private firms also run prison phone services, food and healthcare, often charging families a lot. The same standards apply to them.
    • Jobs in towns with private prisons: Some small towns depend on them. Turn the buildings over to public use or other purposes where possible.
  • What we'd watch: Crowding, costs, incidents and inspection results.
  • When we'd rethink it: If public prisons get dangerously crowded, slow the phase-out.
• Sentences that fit the crime
  • The idea: Sentences in proportion to the crime, diversion where it works, and no pretending fraud or exploitation is harmless just because it isn't violent. The U.S. locks up more people per person than almost any other country. Past a certain point, long sentences add little deterrence and cost roughly $40,000 or more per person per year.
  • First reaction: Fewer very long sentences for lower-level crimes, and more use of diversion like drug courts.
  • What could happen next:
    • Repeat offenders let out too early: A small share of people commit a large share of serious crime. Supervise based on risk, and keep long sentences for repeat violent offenders.
    • Unequal outcomes: Different judges and prosecutors treat similar cases differently. Clear guidelines and published data.
    • Backlash after one bad case: One high-profile crime by someone released early can undo a reform. Be honest that no system is perfect, and measure results over time.
  • What we'd watch: Repeat offenses, prison population and costs.
  • When we'd rethink it: If repeat offending goes up among people diverted or released early, tighten who qualifies.
• Reentry that works
  • The idea: Education, job training, treatment and help with housing, starting before release. About 7 in 10 people released from state prison get arrested again within five years. So the biggest chance to prevent crime is helping people not go back. A RAND review found people who took part in education programs in prison were about 43% less likely to return.
  • First reaction: More people leave prison with ID, a job lead, treatment and a place to live.
  • What could happen next:
    • Programs underfunded or hard to reach: Start before release, and pay providers partly on results.
    • Employers won't hire: Many employers screen out anyone with a record. Tax credits for hiring, and limits on asking about old records for unrelated jobs, help.
    • Housing barriers: Many landlords and public housing rules shut out people with records. Transitional housing bridges the gap.
  • What we'd watch: Jobs, housing, and going back to prison within three years.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the share going back to prison doesn't fall, look at which parts of the program aren't working.
• Support victims
  • The idea: Services, restitution and a real voice in the process. Many victims never get counseling, compensation or even updates on their case, and a lot of court-ordered restitution never gets paid.
  • First reaction: More victims get services and payments.
  • What could happen next:
    • Restitution going uncollected: Offenders often can't pay. A state fund pays victims first, then collects from offenders over time.
    • Services that don't reach everyone: Victims in poor neighborhoods are the least likely to get help. Reach out through community groups.
  • What we'd watch: Restitution paid, victims helped, and how satisfied victims are.
  • When we'd rethink it: If a lot of victims still don't know services exist, change how we reach them.
• A fair defense
  • The idea: Fund public defenders so people who can't afford a lawyer get a real defense. Many public defenders carry hundreds of cases a year, far above recommended limits. That means little time for each client and more innocent people pleading guilty.
  • First reaction: Smaller caseloads and more time for each case.
  • What could happen next:
    • Not enough lawyers want the work: Caseload limits, pay that matches prosecutors, and loan forgiveness.
    • Seen as soft on crime: A fair defense protects the innocent and makes convictions more reliable.
  • What we'd watch: Caseloads, time to trial, and wrongful convictions overturned.
  • When we'd rethink it: If caseloads stay high after funding, check whether the hiring actually happened and whether new cases went up before deciding the limits aren't being enforced.
• Legal cannabis
  • The idea: Legalize and regulate cannabis nationally, taxed and age-limited like alcohol, and clear old convictions for simple possession (see the full commitment). Most states already allow it in some form. Federal prohibition creates confusion, leaves legal businesses without banking, and keeps the illegal market alive.
  • First reaction: Legal sales grow, arrests drop, and illegal sellers lose business.
  • What could happen next:
    • Impaired driving: Roadside tests for cannabis impairment are still poor. Fund better tests and enforcement against impaired driving.
    • Kids using it: Studies in legal states mostly find little change in teen use. Keep age limits, marketing rules and prevention paid for by cannabis taxes.
    • High-potency products: Products are much stronger than they used to be, and heavy use is linked to mental health risks. Labels, potency limits for some products, and public education.
    • The illegal market hanging on: If taxes are too high, illegal sellers stay competitive. Keep taxes low enough to undercut them.
  • What we'd watch: Teen use, impaired-driving crashes, emergency room visits and the size of the illegal market.
  • When we'd rethink it: If teen use or impaired-driving crashes clearly go up, tighten the marketing and potency rules.
• Harder drugs: go after traffickers, treat users
  • The idea: Most harder drugs stay illegal. The focus is on traffickers, especially fentanyl, and treatment instead of jail for people whose only crime is addiction. Overdose deaths topped 100,000 a year at their peak. They've fallen sharply since 2023 but are still far above where they were a decade ago. Medication for opioid addiction cuts the risk of death roughly in half.
  • First reaction: Enforcement shifts toward trafficking, and more people start treatment.
  • What could happen next:
    • Open drug use if treatment isn't ready: Oregon learned that removing penalties without enough treatment led to more public drug use and a backlash. Treatment has to be available on the spot, with real consequences for refusing it.
    • Room in treatment: Many areas have waiting lists. Expand treatment before shifting enforcement.
    • Traffickers adapting: New synthetic drugs show up faster than laws can list them. Focus on supply chains and the chemicals used to make them.
  • What we'd watch: Overdose deaths, how many start treatment and stay in it, and public drug use.
  • When we'd rethink it: If public drug use rises or overdose deaths go up, tighten consequences and expand treatment.

15. Guns

Following the chain: making safe storage free and easy

• The idea: A tax credit or voucher covering most of the cost of a gun safe or lockbox, free locks at gun shops and police stations, and outreach run with hunting groups, ranges and veterans' groups instead of the government lecturing people.
• First reaction: More guns locked up at home. That means fewer suicides, fewer kids hurt in accidents and fewer guns stolen.
• What could happen next:
  • People who won't use it: Hearing it from gun owners they trust matters more than the money.
  • Fear of a registry through the back door: No record of the guns, only of the purchase.
  • Slower to defend yourself: Quick-access safes count.
• What we'd watch: How many people store guns safely, youth gun suicides and accidents, and stolen guns.

The other ideas in this section

Each idea here goes after the causes of gun deaths and the small number of people who are dangerous. None of them are aimed at the tens of millions of responsible owners.

• Treat the causes first (crisis care and violence intervention)
  • The idea: Fund crisis care and the 988 line, focused deterrence, intensive mentoring for the young men at highest risk, violence interrupters where they're run well, and cleaning up vacant lots (see the full commitment). Look at where the deaths are. Most gun deaths are suicides, often in a moment of crisis. Most homicides involve a small number of people in a few neighborhoods. In many cities, fewer than 1% of residents are involved in most shootings, as victims or shooters.
  • First reaction: Programs grow in the hardest-hit neighborhoods. The people most at risk get offers of help along with clear warnings.
  • What could happen next:
    • Money for programs with no evidence behind them: Violence prevention attracts good intentions and weak programs. Fund models with a track record first, and require independent evaluation of new ones.
    • Stop-and-start funding: Programs that lose funding after a year lose the trust they built on the street. Commit to funding for several years, tied to results.
    • Police and community groups at odds: Focused deterrence only works when police, prosecutors and community leaders deliver on both the help and the consequences. Formal agreements on who does what.
    • Crisis care that isn't there: Calling 988 only helps if someone answers and there's somewhere to go. Fund call centers and local crisis services together.
  • What we'd watch: Shootings in program areas compared with similar areas, gun suicides, and 988 response times.
  • When we'd rethink it: If shootings don't drop in program areas after two years compared with similar places, change the model or who runs it.
• Keep guns from people a court has found dangerous (extreme-risk orders)
  • The idea: Family members or police can ask a court to temporarily remove guns from someone who's a serious danger to themselves or others. There's notice, a hearing, a time limit and a clear way to get the guns back. About 21 states and DC have laws like this. Studies of Connecticut and Indiana (Swanson and colleagues) estimated roughly one suicide prevented for every 10 to 20 orders carried out, and most orders are used during suicidal crises.
  • First reaction: Courts issue orders, mostly when someone's at risk of suicide or in domestic violence cases. Some gun owners worry about misuse.
  • What could happen next:
    • Misuse by an angry ex or neighbor: Due process matters. A hearing within days, a high bar for evidence, penalties for false claims, and guns returned automatically when the order ends.
    • Orders not enforced: An order means nothing if the guns aren't actually turned in. Clear procedures, and storage with a licensed dealer or a trusted relative, not only police.
    • People afraid to get help: Some gun owners may avoid mental health care if they're afraid of losing their guns. Make it clear that getting treatment alone doesn't trigger an order.
  • What we'd watch: Orders issued, contested and overturned, guns returned, and suicides among people under orders.
  • When we'd rethink it: If a meaningful share of orders get overturned as unfounded, raise the bar.
• Background checks on every sale
  • The idea: Extend the background check licensed dealers already run to private sales, with exceptions for family transfers and temporary loans for hunting or self-defense. Most gun owners support this. Today a person who's barred from owning guns can often buy one privately with no check at all.
  • First reaction: More private sales go through a check, often at a dealer.
  • What could happen next:
    • Hard for rural sellers: The nearest dealer may be far away. Free, fast checks by phone or app, so a private seller can run one without a dealer.
    • Checks ignored: Checks on every sale only work if people follow the law. Studies of state laws find mixed results when enforcement is weak. Pair it with going after traffickers (below).
    • Fear of a registry: Many owners worry a check system will turn into a national gun registry. Keep the existing ban on a federal registry, and destroy approved check records quickly, as the law already requires.
  • What we'd watch: Crime guns traced to private sales, checks run, and prohibited buyers turned down.
  • When we'd rethink it: If crime gun traces don't change, look at enforcement instead of adding rules.
• Enforce the laws we already have
  • The idea: Prosecute straw buyers, who buy guns for people who can't legally own them, and gun traffickers. A lot of crime guns move through a small number of straw purchases and trafficking routes, and these cases often don't get prosecuted.
  • First reaction: More cases against straw buyers and traffickers, and pressure on the few dealers tied to a lot of crime guns.
  • What could happen next:
    • Too few agents: The ATF has had about the same number of agents for decades. Fund enforcement and track the cases.
    • Punishing honest dealers: Focus on the small number of dealers tied to crime guns again and again.
  • What we'd watch: Prosecutions, trafficked guns recovered, and how quickly recovered guns turned up in crimes after being sold.
  • When we'd rethink it: If prosecutions go up but trafficking doesn't drop, focus on the supply routes.
• Fund honest research
  • The idea: Fund research on what reduces gun deaths, with open data, researchers from across the spectrum and findings published whatever they show. For about two decades federal gun research was nearly frozen, so a lot of these debates run on assumptions instead of evidence.
  • First reaction: New studies on what works, and more data on how guns get used in crime and in self-defense.
  • What could happen next:
    • Research seen as biased: Gun owners worry research is designed to justify restrictions. Include researchers and advisers gun owners trust, publish the data openly, and study defensive gun use too.
    • Findings ignored: Commit ahead of time to revisit policies when evidence comes in, including policies this plan supports.
  • What we'd watch: Studies published, and policies changed because of them.
  • When we'd rethink it: If something here is shown not to work, drop it.

16. Immigration

Following the chain: faster legal immigration decisions

• The idea: Hire far more immigration judges and case officers so asylum and visa decisions happen in months instead of years.
• First reaction: People with real claims get protection sooner. People without one are found out and sent home sooner. Employers get a legal path they can count on.
• What could happen next:
  • Speed versus fairness: Guarantee access to legal help and an appeal.
  • More people trying: A system that works may draw more applicants. Fast and fair still beats a backlog that rewards waiting.
  • Hiring takes years: Start now, and track how fast the backlog shrinks.
  • Traffickers adapting: Work with neighboring countries, and go after the leaders, not just the couriers.
• What we'd watch: The case backlog, time to decision, how appeals turn out, trafficking prosecutions and deaths at the border.

The other ideas in this section

Immigration is one of the clearest places where incentives drive everything. People respond to what the system rewards.

• Legal paths that work
  • The idea: Clear, fast legal ways to come here to work, join family, study or seek refuge. The numbers get set by real labor needs and reviewed every year. Today many legal paths take years or even decades. For some family categories from Mexico, India and the Philippines the wait is more than 20 years, because yearly limits have barely changed since 1990. When the front door barely opens, people try the back door.
  • First reaction: More people apply the legal way, and employers in farming, construction, care and tech fill jobs legally.
  • What could happen next:
    • Demand outrunning new slots: Even more slots won't meet all the demand. Set them by labor needs, adjust them every year, and pair them with enforcement so the legal path is clearly the better choice.
    • Pressure on American workers' wages: In some jobs, more workers can hold wages down. Work visas require market wages, and visa workers can change employers, so they can't be used as cheaper labor that's stuck in place.
    • Fraud: More visas mean more attempts to game them. Fund screening and audits.
  • What we'd watch: Legal arrivals compared with illegal crossings, wait times, and wages in industries that use visas.
  • When we'd rethink it: If wages fall in industries with a lot of visa workers, tighten the wage rules or the numbers.
• A secure, humane border
  • The idea: Modern technology and enough staff at ports and borders, with due process, decent conditions and families kept together. Most fentanyl gets smuggled through official ports of entry, hidden in vehicles, often by U.S. citizens. So scanning at the ports matters more than more wall.
  • First reaction: More drugs caught at ports, and fewer crossings between ports.
  • What could happen next:
    • Smugglers moving to more dangerous routes: When easier crossings close, smugglers send people through deserts and mountains, and more people die. Legal paths take away the reason to risk it. Rescue beacons and patrols cut deaths.
    • Scanning slowing trade: Inspecting more trucks can slow trade across the border. Faster scanners and more lanes, paid for as part of trade infrastructure.
    • Bad conditions in custody: Overcrowded holding facilities have led to deaths and lawsuits. Set standards and inspect them.
  • What we'd watch: Deaths at the border, drugs seized at ports, wait times for trade, and conditions in custody.
  • When we'd rethink it: If deaths go up, change how enforcement is done and strengthen rescue efforts.
• Crush trafficking
  • The idea: Go after drug and human trafficking networks and their leaders, with financial investigations, cooperation with Mexico and other countries, and tough sentences for leaders. Traffickers are businesses. Following the money hurts them more than arresting couriers.
  • First reaction: More cases against network leaders and their money.
  • What could happen next:
    • New leaders replacing old ones: Arresting one boss often sets off violence over who's next. Focus on money laundering and supply chains, which are harder to replace.
    • Victims treated as criminals: People trafficked for labor or sex often get arrested themselves. Protection and visas for victims who cooperate.
  • What we'd watch: Prosecutions of leaders, assets seized, fentanyl supply and overdose deaths.
  • When we'd rethink it: If supply doesn't drop, shift effort to the chemicals used to make the drugs and the financial networks.
• Protect workers
  • The idea: Crack down on employers who use people's immigration status to pay less and cut corners. Reliable work verification for everyone, along with protection for workers who report abuse. Employers who hire undocumented workers off the books undercut honest businesses and American workers.
  • First reaction: More enforcement against employers who exploit workers. Honest employers get fairer competition.
  • What could happen next:
    • Workers afraid to report: If reporting abuse gets you deported, nobody reports. Protect workers who report labor violations.
    • Worker shortages: Enforcement without legal paths can leave farms and builders without workers. Pair it with legal work visas.
  • What we'd watch: Labor cases, stolen wages recovered, and jobs in the industries affected.
  • When we'd rethink it: If crops go unpicked or projects stall, open legal work paths faster.
• A path to citizenship
  • The idea: People who've built lives here, especially those brought as children, can earn citizenship. They'd pass a background check, pay back taxes, learn English and civics, and wait their turn in line. And it comes with a secure border. Estimates put the number of people living in the U.S. without legal status at about 11 to 14 million. Many have been here more than a decade, working, paying taxes and raising children who are U.S. citizens.
  • First reaction: Long-time residents come forward. Their wages and tax payments go up as they move into the legal economy.
  • What could happen next:
    • Seen as rewarding illegal entry: The 1986 law made about 2.7 million people legal but didn't deliver lasting enforcement, so the problem grew. That's why the path only comes with real border security and employer verification.
    • Fraud in applications: Strong background checks and document verification.
    • Backlog: Millions of applications would swamp the system. Fund processing first.
  • What we'd watch: Applications, approvals, new illegal crossings, and wages of newly legal workers.
  • When we'd rethink it: If illegal crossings rise sharply after the path opens, tighten enforcement before going further.
• No arrests at legal appointments
  • The idea: No arresting people at their own hearings, check-ins or citizenship appointments while they're following the legal process (see the full commitment). When following the rules gets you arrested, people stop following the rules.
  • First reaction: People keep showing up for hearings and interviews.
  • What could happen next:
    • Dangerous people slipping through: Allow exceptions with a judge's warrant for serious crimes.
    • Enforcement moving elsewhere: Arrests could shift to homes and workplaces. The same principle applies there too. Focus on people with serious criminal records.
  • What we'd watch: How many people show up to hearings and appointments.
  • When we'd rethink it: If attendance doesn't come back, people don't trust the rule yet, and it needs to be visibly enforced.
• Detention with limits
  • The idea: Detain people who are dangerous or likely to run, and use supervision and check-ins for everyone else. Detention costs about $150 or more per person per day. Alternatives like check-ins and electronic monitoring cost a few dollars a day, and most people on them show up.
  • First reaction: Fewer people without criminal convictions held, and lower costs.
  • What could happen next:
    • People skipping hearings: Some will. Supervision, check-ins and legal help raise attendance. People with lawyers show up far more often.
    • Public pressure after a crime by someone released: Screen carefully, and publish attendance and crime rates honestly.
  • What we'd watch: Hearing attendance, how many are detained, and costs.
  • When we'd rethink it: If attendance drops, tighten supervision.

17. Personal choice

Following the chain: public health rules with an end date

• The idea: Any emergency health rule, like closures or mandates, has to state its goal and evidence. It expires after a set time unless lawmakers vote to renew it.
• First reaction: Rules only last as long as they're needed. Trust grows because people can see they aren't permanent.
• What could happen next:
  • Too slow in a fast crisis: Allow short emergency extensions with a public reason.
  • Bad information spreading faster: Work with doctors and local voices people already trust.
  • Harm to others: Spell out ahead of time where the limits are, so they aren't made up in the middle of a crisis.
• What we'd watch: How long rules last, trust in health guidance, and how outbreaks turn out.

The other ideas in this section

Each one gets checked against the same principle. Adults decide for themselves unless their choice clearly harms someone else.

• Keep government out of private medical decisions (including vaccines)
  • The idea: Adults decide whether to get a vaccine or other treatment, with honest information and easy access. Limits only apply where a choice clearly harms others, and they're spelled out ahead of time. During the pandemic, many people felt mandates were imposed without explanation or end, and trust in public health fell hard. Lost trust is now one of the biggest public health problems we have.
  • First reaction: People who felt forced feel respected. Some who were hesitant become more open to information that isn't pushed on them.
  • What could happen next:
    • Vaccine rates falling and old diseases coming back: Measles cases in 2025 hit their highest level in more than 30 years, mostly among unvaccinated children. Freedom for adults doesn't mean leaving children unprotected. Make vaccines free and easy to get, with honest information from local doctors people trust.
    • Schools and outbreaks: Where a choice puts other children at risk, like going to school unvaccinated during an active outbreak, temporary limits apply. They're written ahead of time.
    • Misinformation filling the gap: If public health doesn't speak plainly, someone else will. Answer real questions honestly, including about side effects.
  • What we'd watch: Vaccination rates by county, outbreaks, and trust in health guidance.
  • When we'd rethink it: If outbreaks of serious diseases spread, strengthen outreach and the outbreak rules.
• Abortion up to viability
  • The idea: A woman's right to decide with her doctor up to viability. After that, only to protect her life or health or for severe fetal conditions, with exceptions written in medical terms (see the full commitment). Since 2022 a patchwork of state laws has left many women traveling hundreds of miles for care, and doctors in some states afraid to treat miscarriages.
  • First reaction: Care becomes available in more states through ballot measures and state laws. Opposition stays strong in others.
  • What could happen next:
    • Fights over later cases: Later abortions are rare and usually involve serious complications. Exceptions written in medical terms, decided by doctors, with no fear of prosecution for good-faith judgment.
    • The national fight continuing: People who believe abortion ends a life won't accept this, and we respect that conviction. Conscience protections (below), and nobody required to take part.
    • Travel and cost: Even where it's legal, care may be far away for rural women. Telehealth, and clinics where there aren't any.
  • What we'd watch: When abortions happen, how mothers do, how far women travel, and doctors leaving states.
  • When we'd rethink it: If mothers' health gets worse anywhere, check whether the exceptions are working in practice.
• Honest information, easy to find
  • The idea: Plain-language health information, based on evidence, from sources people trust, including local doctors, pharmacists and community voices, not just national agencies. People trust their own doctor far more than federal agencies.
  • First reaction: People get answers from people they know.
  • What could happen next:
    • Seen as government messaging: Keep it plain, cite the evidence, admit what isn't known, and let local voices lead.
    • Mixed messages: When guidance changes, explain why. Changing course with new evidence is fine, as long as it's explained.
  • What we'd watch: Trust surveys, and how far false claims spread.
  • When we'd rethink it: If trust keeps falling, ask people which sources they do trust.
• Responsibility goes with freedom
  • The idea: You own your choices and what they do to others. Where a choice clearly harms someone else, reasonable limits apply, written ahead of time. That harm line is at the heart of how this plan thinks about freedom.
  • First reaction: Clearer rules for choices that affect other people.
  • What could happen next:
    • Stretching "harm" to justify anything: Almost anything can be called harmful to someone. Define harm narrowly, as direct, likely and serious, and let courts review it.
    • Too narrow to protect people: Some real harms are indirect. Review cases on a set schedule.
  • What we'd watch: Cases where the harm line gets used, and how courts rule.
  • When we'd rethink it: If it gets used to restrict ordinary choices, tighten the definition.
• Respect conscience
  • The idea: Doctors and nurses with deep moral objections aren't forced to perform procedures, as long as patients get referred and can still get care in time somewhere else. Freedom of conscience is part of the same freedom this section protects.
  • First reaction: Workers with objections are protected, and most patients don't notice any change.
  • What could happen next:
    • Rural patients who can't get care: In places with one hospital or one pharmacy, an objection can mean no care at all. The protection only holds if the patient gets referred and can still get care nearby or by telehealth.
    • Institutions claiming conscience: Some hospital systems claim objections for all their staff. Individual conscience is protected. Emergency care still has to be provided.
  • What we'd watch: Gaps in access by county, and patient complaints.
  • When we'd rethink it: If access gaps grow in specific areas, check whether the cause is refused referrals, a shortage of providers or travel distance, and fix that cause.
• Medical aid in dying
  • The idea: Adults who are terminally ill and mentally competent can choose medical aid in dying, with safeguards like two clinicians signing off, a capacity check, and taking the medicine themselves (see the full commitment). Oregon has nearly 30 years of public data showing the law gets used rarely, mostly by people with cancer.
  • First reaction: Dying patients get a choice. Some take comfort in having it even if they never use it.
  • What could happen next:
    • Pressure on vulnerable people: Disability groups worry people who are poor, disabled or depressed will feel pushed. Keep the terminal-illness requirement firm, check capacity, refer for a mental health evaluation when in doubt, and publish the reasons people give.
    • Expanding past terminal illness: Canada expanded its law past terminal illness. We wouldn't. The law covers terminal illness only.
    • Not enough palliative care: Nobody should choose death because good end-of-life care wasn't there. Fund palliative and hospice care alongside it.
  • What we'd watch: Requests, the reasons people give, use of palliative care, and any reports of abuse.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the reasons people give shift toward cost or lack of care, strengthen palliative support and review the safeguards.

18. Family, faith and equal dignity

Following the chain: a monthly child tax credit

• The idea: A child tax credit paid monthly to families, including families who earn little, phasing out at higher incomes.
• First reaction: Families can count on steady help with food, rent and childcare. When a version of this ran in 2021, child poverty fell to a record low of 5.2%. When it expired, child poverty more than doubled to 12.4% in 2022 (Census Bureau, Supplemental Poverty Measure).
• What could happen next:
  • Work: Critics worry some parents will work less. The evidence from 2021 found little effect, but pair it with childcare that fits work schedules and watch closely.
  • Cost: It's expensive, and it overlaps with the basic income. Design them together so they don't double up.
  • Fraud and mistakes: Simple sign-up, plus checks that don't bury honest families in paperwork.
  • Ending suddenly: When the 2021 version expired, child poverty jumped right back. Make it stable.
• What we'd watch: Child poverty, families going hungry, parents' jobs and birth rates.

Following the chain: replacing automatic tax exemption for religious organizations with credits for community service

• The idea: End the blanket tax exemption for religious organizations. Keep a partial deduction for people's donations, and give tax credits for documented service to the community.
• First reaction: Organizations that do a lot of community work keep most of their tax benefit. Wealthy organizations with big property holdings and little public service pay more. Public trust grows because the benefits match the good work.
• What could happen next:
  • Small congregations closing: Small rural and immigrant churches run on thin budgets and may not be able to document services or pay property tax. Exempt small organizations under a set size, and keep the paperwork simple.
  • Spending down profit: Organizations will move money into salaries, housing allowances and buildings to look like they break even. Base the line on revenue and assets, not profit.
  • Legal challenge: The Supreme Court upheld church tax exemption in 1970 (Walz v. Tax Commission). The Constitution doesn't require the exemption, but treating churches worse than other nonprofits would be struck down. So the same rules apply to every nonprofit, religious or not.
  • Government judging religion: Deciding which services "count" could put officials in the position of judging churches. Use the same clear rules for every charity, religious or not.
  • Backlash and distrust: Many believers will see this as an attack on faith, which cuts against what we're trying to do in bringing people together. We have to make the case that it's about fairness and accountability, not religion.
  • Services dropping: If churches cut food banks or shelters, the people they serve lose out. Phase it in slowly and watch whether services hold up.
• What we'd watch: How many congregations there are, the community services they provide, money raised, and how court cases turn out.
• What the numbers show: Churches don't have to file financial returns with the IRS, so nobody knows how many have $50,000 or more in net income. Surveys give a picture of size instead. In 2020, two-thirds of congregations took in less than $100,000 a year, and the typical small congregation had about $87,000 in income against $86,000 in expenses. In 2023 the median congregation took in about $165,000 and spent about $160,000. Only about 4% have budgets over $1 million, but those congregations hold about half of all weekly worshipers. So most congregations roughly break even, and the money is concentrated in a small number of large ones. (Sources: Faith Communities Today 2020 and Hartford Institute 2023 surveys; NORC National Congregations Study.)
• What that means for the design: A line based on net profit would be easy to get around, because an organization can spend its profit on salaries and buildings. A line based on total revenue, assets or property value would reach the large, wealthy organizations and leave the typical small congregation alone. The line we'd draw: the change applies to religious organizations with more than $5 million in yearly revenue or more than $25 million in assets, adjusted for inflation. That leaves out the roughly two-thirds of congregations taking in under $100,000, and almost all of the 4% with budgets over $1 million. It reaches the largest megachurches, media ministries and religious conglomerates. Every organization above the line files the same basic public financial report other large nonprofits already file (a Form 990), including the plain-language report to donors on where the money went. That would finally give us real data.

The other ideas in this section

These are the most emotional issues in the whole plan. So each chain also asks how the change will feel to the people who disagree with it.

• Parents informed, schools teaching everyone
  • The idea: Parents get to see everything that's taught and have real ways to raise concerns, while the shared curriculum stays shared (see the full commitment). Most parents want to know what their kids are learning and to be heard. We'd give them that, without letting one family's objections decide what every child learns.
  • First reaction: Parents look at the curriculum. Most find nothing alarming, and a smaller group raises concerns.
  • What could happen next:
    • Fights over every lesson: Without a fair process, every concern turns into a school board battle. Clear channels with deadlines, a review committee that includes parents and teachers, and published decisions.
    • Teachers afraid to teach: Teachers worried about complaints may avoid anything that could stir up controversy. Protect teachers who follow the approved curriculum.
    • Parents who feel unheard: If concerns go nowhere, trust collapses. Show which concerns led to changes.
  • What we'd watch: Concerns raised and resolved, teachers leaving, and parent trust surveys.
  • When we'd rethink it: If most parents don't trust the process, give parents more voice in it.
• No removing books for everyone
  • The idea: A parent can decide what their own child reads, but no parent or group can remove books for everyone else's kids. Trained staff decide which ages a book is shelved for. In recent years thousands of books have been challenged, and a large share of the challenges came from a small number of people filing lots of complaints.
  • First reaction: Parents choose for their own child, and challenges to remove books for everyone drop.
  • What could happen next:
    • Some material really isn't right for an age group: Not every challenge is censorship. Trained staff place books by age, and a parent can ask to move a book to an older section through a fair review.
    • Seen as brushing off parents: Make the family choice simple, like a list of books a child can't check out.
  • What we'd watch: Challenges filed, how they turn out, and how many families use their own restrictions.
  • When we'd rethink it: If reviews keep finding books in the wrong place, improve how those decisions get made.
• Religious freedom for all
  • The idea: Freedom to worship, or not, and to live by your faith, for every religion. Government neither favors nor punishes any faith. Many Americans of faith feel the culture looks down on them, and religious minorities face real hostility.
  • First reaction: Faith groups of every kind feel protected.
  • What could happen next:
    • Conflicts with anti-discrimination rules: The hardest cases are where one person's faith meets another person's equal treatment, like a wedding vendor and a gay couple. The harm line is the guide. Freedom to believe and worship is nearly absolute. Limits apply to actions that deny someone service in the public marketplace, with narrow protection for clergy and religious ceremonies.
    • Minority faiths overlooked: Protections have to apply as strongly to small and unpopular faiths as to large ones.
  • What we'd watch: Religious freedom and discrimination cases, and hate crimes against religious groups.
  • When we'd rethink it: If either side keeps losing cases they should win under the harm line, adjust the rules.
• Equal treatment under the law
  • The idea: Nobody loses a job, a home or service because of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, and marriage equality is settled. Most Americans already agree. Polls show large majorities support protecting gay and transgender people from job discrimination.
  • First reaction: Fewer people fired or turned away over who they are.
  • What could happen next:
    • Conflicts with religious employers: A narrow exemption for clergy and core religious roles, like ministers and religious teachers, but not for every job at a religious organization.
    • Lawsuits: New protections bring lawsuits. Clear rules mean fewer disputes.
  • What we'd watch: Complaints and how they turn out.
  • When we'd rethink it: If religious organizations get pushed out of community services, take another look at how wide the exemption is.
• Public money comes with public rules
  • The idea: Any organization that takes public money to deliver services, religious or not, follows the same standards (see the full commitment). Public money should carry the same rules for everyone.
  • First reaction: Most providers already meet the standards. A few change how they do things or stop taking public money.
  • What could happen next:
    • Fewer providers: Faith groups run a lot of shelters, food banks, adoption agencies and schools. If they leave public programs, some areas may lose services. Help other providers grow before contracts end, and phase it in slowly.
    • Seen as anti-faith: The rules apply the same to every provider, religious or not.
  • What we'd watch: How much service is available in each area, especially rural places.
  • When we'd rethink it: If services drop in an area, slow down there until other providers can step in.
• A fair place to play for transgender athletes
  • The idea: The harm line, applied sport by sport. In elite strength, power and contact sports, the women's category is protected and an open category is added. Youth, recreational and low-contact sports keep the door open. Not many athletes are involved, but it touches deep questions of fairness and belonging.
  • First reaction: Sports bodies set or adjust their rules, and arguments continue at the edges.
  • What could happen next:
    • Fairness and safety disputes: In strength and contact sports, the advantages that remain raise real fairness and safety concerns. Rules by sport and level, reviewed as the evidence gets better.
    • Privacy: Any screening has to be private and respectful, never public inspection of kids' bodies.
    • Kids shut out of play: In youth and recreational sports, what's at stake is fun, fitness and belonging. Keep the door open there.
  • What we'd watch: Who's playing, complaints, and injury data.
  • When we'd rethink it: As new evidence on performance comes in, update the rules.
• Care for transgender minors
  • The idea: Gender transition treatments at 18, or 16 with a parent's consent after required counseling. Puberty blockers before 16 only within research studies (see the full commitment). The evidence for youth gender medicine is weaker than many assumed, as England's Cass Review found, and families deserve careful, honest care.
  • First reaction: Care moves into structured research programs with counseling. Some families are relieved to have a clear path. Others feel it's too slow.
  • What could happen next:
    • Waiting hurts some kids: Some young people in real distress may suffer while they wait. Strong mental health support during the wait, and access to research studies before 16.
    • Moving too fast hurts others: Some young people later stop identifying as transgender. Counseling first, and long-term follow-up.
    • Counseling that turns into conversion therapy: The counseling has to help people understand and decide, and never pressure them either way.
    • Legal conflicts: Some states ban this care entirely, and the 2025 Supreme Court ruling allows that. This would be pursued state by state and through future law.
  • What we'd watch: Mental health, regret and detransition rates, and research results over time.
  • When we'd rethink it: As research results come in, adjust the age and treatment rules.

19. Aging, disability, retirement and veterans

Following the chain: paying and training home caregivers

• The idea: Fund home and community care under Medicare and Medicaid, including paying trained family members as caregivers, so people can grow old at home instead of in a nursing facility.
• First reaction: Many seniors and people with disabilities stay home. Most prefer that, and it often costs less than a nursing facility. Family caregivers get some income.
• What could happen next:
  • Demand jumping: Many families who care for free now will sign up, so costs go up. Phase it in and be honest about the price.
  • Quality and abuse: Care at home is harder to oversee. Training, check-ins and easy ways to report problems.
  • Not enough workers: Home care pay is low and turnover is high. Raise pay and create career paths.
  • Family pressure: Paying relatives may pressure some into caregiving. Keep it a choice, with professional care available too.
• What we'd watch: How many people grow old at home, cost per person, caregiver turnover, abuse reports, and caregivers' own health and finances.

The other ideas in this section

• An independent audit of Social Security
  • The idea: A public audit led by GAO with an outside panel of actuaries and economists from across the spectrum, finished within a year, with every model published (see the full commitment). Social Security's own trustees already publish detailed reports, but a lot of Americans don't trust them, and every reform idea gets accused of a hidden agenda. An independent audit anyone can check gives every side the same numbers before the decision.
  • First reaction: Trust in the numbers grows, and people on all sides wait for the results before committing.
  • What could happen next:
    • The audit becoming a political weapon: Each side may try to shape or spin the result. A balanced panel, open methods, and every assumption published.
    • Delay used as an excuse: The audit can't become a reason to do nothing. A one-year deadline, with the decision right after.
    • Results that surprise: The audit could find the program in better or worse shape than expected. Commit ahead of time to follow the evidence.
  • What we'd watch: How the audit compares with the trustees' numbers, and public trust.
  • When we'd rethink it: If the audit runs past its deadline, act on the trustees' numbers.
• Keep the promise to people who paid in
  • The idea: No benefit cuts for anyone who's retired or close to it. People made life plans around these benefits and can't go back and save differently.
  • First reaction: Retirees and people near retirement feel secure.
  • What could happen next:
    • The fix falling on younger workers: If current and near retirees are protected, the changes land on younger people. Spread the fix fairly across incomes, with the biggest share from the highest earners.
    • What "close to retirement" means: Set it clearly, like anyone 55 or older.
  • What we'd watch: How much of the gap gets closed, and who carries the cost by age and income.
  • When we'd rethink it: If younger workers' benefits fall sharply compared with what they pay in, the balance is wrong.
• Remove the payroll cap, with a modest limit on top benefits
  • The idea: Apply Social Security payroll tax to all earnings, not just the first $184,500, and limit how much the very highest earners get back. That's where we lean (see the full commitment). Since 1983 a growing share of wages has gone above the cap, so less of the country's income pays into Social Security than when the system was last fixed.
  • First reaction: High earners and their employers pay more.
  • What could happen next:
    • Moving pay into untaxed forms: Some high earners may take more income as business profits or capital gains. Count all earned income, including some business income.
    • Weakening the link between what you pay and what you get: Social Security is popular partly because people feel they get back what they paid in. A limit on top benefits weakens that for high earners. Keep the limit modest, so the program stays insurance and not welfare.
    • Employer costs: Employers pay half. For most employers the extra cost is small, since it only affects their highest-paid workers.
  • What we'd watch: Revenue compared with estimates, and how many years the funding lasts.
  • When we'd rethink it: If revenue falls well short because income is shifting, widen what counts.
• Medicare joins single payer
  • The idea: Seniors join the one public plan in wave two, targeted for January 2030, after it's run for a year for everyone in wave one (see section 4). Medicare Advantage ends, and the new plan covers dental, vision, hearing and long-term care in full. Medicare is already the closest thing the U.S. has to single payer, and seniors depend on it.
  • First reaction: Seniors worry about losing their current plans, especially the half or more who are in Medicare Advantage.
  • What could happen next:
    • A rocky switch: Seniors are hurt most by disruption. They move in the second wave, after the system has worked for a year for everyone else, and nobody loses care in the middle of treatment.
    • Losing extra benefits: Some Medicare Advantage plans offer dental or gym benefits. The new plan covers dental, vision and hearing in full (see section 4), so seniors get more than most of those plans gave them.
  • What we'd watch: How satisfied seniors are, their access to care, and what they pay out of pocket.
  • When we'd rethink it: If wave one shows access problems, fix them before seniors move. If seniors' access gets worse after they move, fix that first, ahead of any other health change.
• Long-term care at home: See the example at the top of this section.
• Support family caregivers
  • The idea: Paid leave, respite care and Social Security credit for years spent caregiving. Nearly 1 in 4 adults, about 63 million people, gives unpaid care to a family member or friend (AARP, 2025). Many give up work, income and retirement savings to do it. Their unpaid care is worth an estimated hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
  • First reaction: Families get paid leave, respite and retirement credit.
  • What could happen next:
    • Fraud: Some may claim care they aren't giving. Simple checks that the care is happening, without burying honest families in paperwork.
    • Rising costs: Caregiving credits cost money. Count them in the budget.
  • What we'd watch: Caregiver burnout, jobs and retirement savings.
  • When we'd rethink it: If caregivers still end up in poverty, the support isn't enough.
• Stop penalizing people with disabilities for working and marrying
  • The idea: Earning more or getting married shouldn't mean losing the support people with disabilities need. Today someone on Supplemental Security Income can lose benefits for having more than $2,000 in savings, a limit that hasn't changed since 1989. Marrying can cut benefits sharply. That traps people in poverty and pushes some to stay unmarried.
  • First reaction: More people with disabilities work, save and marry without losing support.
  • What could happen next:
    • Higher program costs: Fewer people losing benefits means more cost. Phasing benefits down gradually as income rises, instead of a cliff, keeps this in check.
    • Fraud worries: Clear rules and simple reporting.
  • What we'd watch: Jobs, earnings, savings and marriage among people with disabilities.
  • When we'd rethink it: If costs go up without more work or savings, adjust the phase-down.
• Veterans first
  • The idea: Timely healthcare inside or outside the VA, judged by results. One record that follows a veteran from service into civilian life. Fast disability decisions. Mental health care and suicide prevention. And help with housing, education and careers. About 6,400 veterans die by suicide every year, and many wait months for care or decisions.
  • First reaction: Faster care and decisions, inside or outside the VA.
  • What could happen next:
    • Outside care costing more or harder to coordinate: Community care has grown fast and can split care up. One shared record, and care judged by results.
    • Hollowing out the VA: If too much care moves outside, the VA may lose specialists. Keep what the VA does well, like its expertise in combat injuries and mental health.
  • What we'd watch: Wait times, how veterans do, veteran suicide, and how long claims take.
  • When we'd rethink it: If veterans using outside care do worse, adjust the balance.
• A retirement account for every worker
  • The idea: A simple retirement account for every worker, including part-time and gig workers, with automatic sign-up and matching help for lower earners. It builds on state programs like CalSavers. AARP estimates about 56 million private-sector workers have no retirement plan at work.
  • First reaction: More workers save, mostly because they're signed up automatically.
  • What could happen next:
    • Low-income workers can't spare the money: Make it easy to opt out, and match lower earners' savings so saving pays off.
    • Fees eating savings: Low-cost index funds as the default.
    • Employers dropping better plans: Keep the public account as a floor, not a replacement.
  • What we'd watch: Who takes part and balances by income.
  • When we'd rethink it: If a lot of lower earners opt out, raise the match.

20. Defense, trade and the world

Following the chain: defense contracts that reward results

• The idea: More competition among suppliers. Fixed-price contracts where the technology is mature. Prize-style challenges for new technology. And an automatic review, with the power to cancel, when a program runs far over budget or behind schedule.
• First reaction: Smaller cost overruns, and room for newer, faster companies to compete with the giants.
• What could happen next:
  • Fewer bids: Only use fixed prices where the risk is understood.
  • Lobbying: Publish the review results, so cancellations come down to data and not whose district the work is in.
  • Losing suppliers: Protect critical supply lines that only one company provides, even when they cost more.
  • Speed versus checks: Pair faster buying with audits after the fact.
• What we'd watch: Cost and schedule overruns, how long it takes to get new technology into the field, how many suppliers compete, and readiness.

The other ideas in this section

In defense and foreign policy, other countries react too. So every chain has to think about what rivals and allies will do.

• Stay ahead through technology
  • The idea: Invest in AI, cyber defense, space, drones, advanced manufacturing and the people behind them, and make it easier for newer companies to compete for defense work. The war in Ukraine showed how cheap drones and fast software updates can change a battlefield in months, while major U.S. weapons programs often take more than a decade to reach the field. China now builds far more ships and drones than the U.S. every year.
  • First reaction: More investment in new technology, and newer companies start winning contracts.
  • What could happen next:
    • Money going to the established contractors instead of the best ideas: The five largest defense contractors win most major contracts. Open competitions, prize challenges and fast paths for new companies.
    • Rivals matching us: Any lead invites rivals to invest more. Staying ahead takes steady investment, not one big push.
    • The "valley of death": Many promising prototypes never get bought in quantity, because there's no budget line to move them into production. Set money aside to scale up what works.
  • What we'd watch: Time from prototype to the field, how many contracts go to newer companies, and how fast key systems get built.
  • When we'd rethink it: If new companies win prototypes but not production contracts, the buying process is still the bottleneck.
• A person accountable for every use of lethal force
  • The idea: AI can help analyze information, but a named, responsible person has to make and own every targeting decision. Civilian deaths get an independent investigation, and the findings are made public by a deadline (see the full commitment). As AI speeds up targeting, the risk grows that nobody really checks a recommendation before a strike, as reporting on the Minab school strike suggests.
  • First reaction: Clear lines of responsibility. Some commanders worry decisions will be slower.
  • What could happen next:
    • Slower decisions in fast-moving fights: Defensive systems, like the ones that shoot down incoming missiles, need to react in seconds. They're allowed to. But every strike on people, or places with people in them, has a named person who approves it.
    • Blame pushed down to junior officers: Accountability has to reach the people who set the pace and the rules, not just the person who pressed the button.
    • Rivals not following the same rules: Some rivals may use fully automatic weapons. Our standard is part of why people trust us, and we push for international limits.
  • What we'd watch: Civilian harm reviews finished, findings released on time, and changes made after each review.
  • When we'd rethink it: If reviews keep finding the same failure, tighten the rules on how fast targets get approved and how the data gets checked.
• A ready, well-supported force
  • The idea: Good pay, housing and healthcare for service members and their families. The military missed its recruiting goals in several recent years. Many military families deal with housing problems like mold, and frequent moves that disrupt spouses' careers.
  • First reaction: Better recruiting and fewer people leaving, especially experienced service members.
  • What could happen next:
    • Costs crowding out other priorities: Personnel is a big share of the budget. Pay for it from contracting savings.
    • Privatized housing problems: A lot of military housing is run by private companies, with serious maintenance failures. Hold those companies to strict standards, with penalties.
  • What we'd watch: Recruiting, how many stay, readiness, and family satisfaction surveys.
  • When we'd rethink it: If people keep leaving at the same rate, ask them why.
• Keep our word: alliances and diplomacy
  • The idea: Strong alliances, real diplomacy and preventing conflicts, because the cheapest wars are the ones that never start. Alliances multiply U.S. strength. NATO allies, Japan, South Korea and Australia add their militaries, bases and economies to ours.
  • First reaction: Allies trust U.S. commitments more and work more closely with us.
  • What could happen next:
    • Allies riding on U.S. spending: That's a fair worry. Clear shared commitments, like NATO's spending targets, reviewed every year. Many allies have raised spending sharply since 2022.
    • Commitments that drag us into wars: Alliances should prevent wars, not start them. Clear limits on what each commitment covers.
  • What we'd watch: Allied spending, joint exercises, and conflicts prevented or ended.
  • When we'd rethink it: If allies don't meet their commitments over several years, renegotiate.
• Protect against cyberattacks
  • The idea: Protect power grids, hospitals, water systems and elections from cyberattacks, working with the private companies that run most of that infrastructure. Ransomware has shut down hospitals and a major fuel pipeline. Federal agencies have warned that foreign hackers have gotten inside U.S. water and power systems.
  • First reaction: Big companies upgrade their security. Small operators ask for help.
  • What could happen next:
    • Costs for small utilities and hospitals: Many small water systems and rural hospitals have no security staff. Shared tools, training and money for small operators.
    • Reporting rules ignored: Companies may hide attacks to avoid embarrassment. Required reporting, with no penalties for reporting honestly.
  • What we'd watch: Incidents, how long recovery takes, and how many small operators meet basic standards.
  • When we'd rethink it: If major attacks keep hitting the same kinds of systems, raise the minimum standards.
• Smart trade: tariffs only for new industries
  • The idea: Tariffs mostly go away. The exception is temporary protection for new, promising industries until they can compete, with firm end dates. Critical supply chains like chips and medicines move home or to trusted allies. Towns hurt by trade get real support. Tariffs are paid mostly by American buyers. Studies of recent rounds found nearly all the cost was passed on to U.S. consumers and businesses.
  • First reaction: Lower prices on imports. Some protected industries push to keep their protection.
  • What could happen next:
    • Protected industries that never grow up: Protection with no end date turns into a permanent subsidy. Milestones and firm end dates, written into law.
    • Unwinding tariffs shocking businesses: Some businesses have adjusted to today's tariffs. Phase them down on a published schedule.
    • Bringing supply chains home costs more: Making chips and medicines here or with allies can raise prices. That's the price of security, so limit it to goods that are truly critical.
    • Help for hard-hit towns that never shows up: Past trade aid reached few workers. Simpler, automatic help tied to the basic income and training (see section 5).
  • What we'd watch: Prices, whether protected industries become competitive, and jobs in affected towns.
  • When we'd rethink it: If a protected industry misses its milestones, end the protection on schedule.
• Help others prosper: foreign aid judged by results
  • The idea: Aid focused on clean water, health, food and disaster response, judged by results and run with local communities instead of expensive consultants (see the full commitment). Programs like PEPFAR are credited with saving about 25 million lives at a small cost. Foreign aid has always been around 1% of the federal budget.
  • First reaction: Aid goes to proven programs, and goodwill toward the U.S. grows where it works.
  • What could happen next:
    • Waste or corruption: Some aid gets lost to corruption or overhead. Independent evaluation, local partners and fewer middlemen.
    • Rivals filling the gap: When the U.S. pulls back, China and others step in with loans and influence. Steady funding holds that ground.
  • What we'd watch: Results per dollar, like lives saved and children vaccinated.
  • When we'd rethink it: If a program can't show results, move the money to one that can.
• Lead on shared threats
  • The idea: Lead on pandemics, climate, AI safety and cybercrime, which no country can handle alone.
  • First reaction: More cooperation around the world, and shared standards.
  • What could happen next:
    • Agreements nobody enforces: Many agreements have no teeth. Agreements need reporting and checks.
    • Giving up sovereignty: Working together shouldn't mean handing decisions to international bodies. Keep agreements voluntary and open to review.
  • What we'd watch: Whether every side meets its commitments.
  • When we'd rethink it: If other countries don't meet their commitments, adjust ours to match.
• Intelligence with limits
  • The idea: Strong intelligence on foreign threats, with clear limits and independent oversight of spying on Americans. Past programs collected Americans' phone records in bulk, and oversight bodies have found repeated misuse of searches of Americans' communications.
  • First reaction: Stronger oversight and warrants for searching Americans' communications. Intelligence agencies warn about losing tools.
  • What could happen next:
    • Missing real threats: Foreign intelligence stays strong. The limits apply to Americans' communications.
    • Oversight that doesn't oversee: Independent oversight bodies need full access and enough staff.
  • What we'd watch: Oversight reports, violations found, and threats caught.
  • When we'd rethink it: If violations keep turning up, tighten the rules further.