← We The People Platform Download .docx

WE THE PEOPLE

An Architecture for Shared Prosperity

Twelve Pillars. One Foundation.

When I do well, we all do well.

A Platform Document

Jason Robertson

Ohio · 2026

v2.12 · Created April 2026 · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.22 (item 75 added; Twelve Specific Situations now Thirteen) · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.23 (audit findings: Pillar Four-Seven H1 sections, Sources and Data Foundations) · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.24 (consolidation: cover tagline 'Three' → 'Seven', Open Issues Registry referenced) · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.25 (count refs updated for item 77) · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.26 (item 78 added; Path A → Path B; Fifteen → Sixteen) · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.26.2 (SIG-5: Federal Infrastructure Fee framing in Civic Infrastructure section) · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.30.27 (AI-resilience cross-link to Built For What's Coming; values-conditional framing in Who This Is For) · Updated May 7, 2026 for v3.2.0 (Pillar Eight: Universal Paid Family Time added; cover tagline updated from Seven Pillars to Eight Pillars) · Updated May 7, 2026 for v3.3.0 (Pillar Nine: Universal Long-Term Care added; cover tagline updated from Eight Pillars to Nine Pillars) · Updated May 7, 2026 for v3.4.0 (Pillar Ten: Federal Housing Investment added; cover tagline updated from Nine Pillars to Ten Pillars) · Updated May 7, 2026 for v3.5.0 (Pillar Eleven: Climate Architecture added; cover tagline updated from Ten Pillars to Eleven Pillars) · Updated May 7, 2026 for v3.6.0 (Pillar Twelve: Immigration Architecture added; cover tagline updated from Eleven Pillars to Twelve Pillars; v4.0.0 four-pillar architecture proposal sequence completed) · Updated May 10, 2026 for v3.7.12 (four-value vision frame added) · Updated May 10, 2026 for v3.7.13 (wage floor recalibration changed to smoothed 3-year moving average annually) · Updated May 10, 2026 for v3.7.14 (Pillar 3 expansion) · Updated May 10, 2026 for v3.7.15 (master doc Pillar 3 paras 83 + 88 rewritten to remove stale per-person cap language) · Updated May 10, 2026 for v3.7.19 (Pillar 8 canonical employer/employee split 0.25%/0.15% documented)

Sources Baseline. Numerical claims in this document derive from the canonical sources cataloged in 05_Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx, including: IRS Statistics of Income 2023 baseline (filer counts, income distributions); CMS National Health Expenditure data 2023 (the $14,612 per-capita healthcare baseline and aggregate healthcare spending); Census Bureau population estimates 2023 (per-capita denominators); Social Security Administration Trustees Reports 2023-2024 (the $63 trillion 75-year actuarial deficit figure); the Combined Reform Model (04_Combined_Reform_Model.xlsx) for sovereign fund and consolidated fiscal projections; and the Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis (05_Federal_Fiscal_Impact_Analysis.docx) for pillar-level aggregate cost estimates. Claims explicitly requiring external credentialed validation are tracked in the Open Issues Registry under RESEARCH-1 through RESEARCH-8 and PERSONA-SIG-3 through 5.

A Note Before You Begin

This is not a campaign document. It is not a wish list. It is the foundation of a way of thinking about how an economy can be organized to produce shared prosperity rather than concentrated prosperity.

It rests on a simple proposition: when we measure honestly, contribute fairly, and direct the wealth that we collectively produce toward the things that benefit all of us, we get a country that works better for almost everyone. The mechanism by which this happens is not novel and is not theoretical. Australia has been running a version of it since 1992. Norway has been running another version since 1990. Singapore has been running a third version since 1955. Each of these countries is wealthier, healthier, and more economically secure than its peers, in part because of the architecture each has chosen.

The proposition that follows applies that architecture to the United States. It is described in three parts because its three components support each other. None of them stand fully alone. Together, they make a system.

The analysis underneath each part is real. There are spreadsheet models with thousands of formulas behind the numbers in this document. There are international comparisons drawn from peer-reviewed economics literature. There are honest acknowledgments of where the analysis has limits and where serious institutional analysis would be needed before any of this could become law. This document does not perform that analysis; it summarizes it. The technical detail lives in companion documents available on request.

What you will find here is a vision and the structure that supports it. If the vision speaks to you, the analysis is available. If the analysis is what you want first, the white papers exist. This document is the bridge between the two.

“A community looks after its members. The argument is not whether this is true. The argument is over how.”

What This Architecture Encourages

This platform encourages five things at once: individuality, inclusivity, unity, equity, and ownership in America's bright future for me, and my friends, and my neighbors, and every American — together.

Individuality, because universal supports decouple personal mobility from employer dependence and free citizens to pursue their own paths in work, in learning, and in family life. A person who is not afraid of losing health coverage can change jobs. A person who is not paying down a degree's debt can take a risk on something new. A person whose long-term care is secured can plan for the life they want rather than the life their precarity dictates.

Inclusivity, because the federal-as-floor architecture means no group can fall below the baseline regardless of where they live or how much they earn. The architecture is universal in scope precisely so that it cannot be made conditional on the dimensions on which Americans have historically been excluded.

Unity, because the same architectural logic runs through every pillar: shared problems share solutions; the contribution mechanism is one mechanism with twelve uses; when one of us does well, we all do better. The platform's tagline — when I do well, we all do well — is not aspirational. It is descriptive of how the architecture is structured to operate.

Equity, because the platform measures honestly and contributes fairly. Wage floors are set by occupation rather than by geography, so that the same work pays the same baseline in every state. Contribution is by means rather than by mere wage, so that the largest shoulders carry proportionate weight. The high-earner architecture (graduated income surcharge, wealth surcharge, wealth tax) ensures that the platform's expansionary commitments are funded by those who have most benefited from the existing arrangement.

And ownership, because the Sovereign Fund and the Founding Stake make every American a participant in the wealth the country produces — not just a customer of the economy or a recipient of services, but a co-owner of the future the country is building. Ownership is the difference between a citizen and a beneficiary. The platform is built to make every American the former.

These five together are what this document and the eleven that follow it describe. The architecture is the means; this is the end.

Where We Are

The country is rich. The country is also full of people who do not feel the benefits of that wealth. Both of these things are true at the same time, and the gap between them is the problem this document addresses.

Aggregate United States gross domestic product per person ranks among the highest in the world. United States median household wealth ranks near the bottom of the developed world. Aggregate United States stock market capitalization is larger than the next nine countries combined. The percentage of Americans who report living paycheck to paycheck has not meaningfully declined in twenty years. American workers produce more output per hour than workers in almost any other country. American workers receive a smaller share of what they produce than workers in almost any other country.

The gap between the wealth that the country produces and the security that ordinary people experience has many causes, and the debate about causes is a familiar one. This document is not about causes. It is about structure. The structure of how a country shares the wealth it produces is something that can be designed. The United States has chosen one design. Other countries have chosen others. The results are visible.

Three Specific Problems

Three failures of the current structure are visible enough that they unite people across political coalitions when described concretely:

First, retirement security is collapsing. Social Security will be unable to pay full scheduled benefits beginning in 2033. The median American household approaches retirement with savings that will fund roughly six years of post-retirement living. The number of Americans relying on Social Security as their primary income source in retirement is rising, not falling. Whatever we are doing now is not working.

Second, wages have separated from productivity. Worker productivity has roughly doubled since 1980. Real wages for the bottom half of earners have grown by roughly twenty percent over the same period. The gap is the share of productivity gains that flowed to capital rather than to labor. The federal minimum wage has not been adjusted since 2009 and has lost roughly thirty percent of its real value. Whatever floor we have established is too low and too rigid.

Third, education has become a financial trap. American students hold roughly $1.7 trillion (per CMS NHE baseline minus the platform's $9,500 per-capita Year-15 target) in education debt. Student debt grows three times faster than wages. The average graduate spends a meaningful portion of their working career servicing it. We have created a system where the path to economic opportunity itself produces the next generation’s economic insecurity.

“A country that produces more wealth than any other country has ever produced should not have these problems. It does because of how the wealth is structured, not because of how much there is.”

The Foundation

Three problems share a single underlying solution. Before describing the three pillars, the foundation that supports them is worth naming, because the foundation is what makes the architecture work.

Pooled Contribution

Money grows when it is invested over long horizons. This is the most powerful force in economics, and it is one of the most underused tools in American public policy. A small contribution made by every person, every year, accumulated into a single pooled fund, invested over decades, produces wealth at a scale that almost no other mechanism can match. Australia’s superannuation system has accumulated roughly four trillion dollars in collective worker savings since 1992. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund holds roughly $1.7 trillion (per CMS NHE baseline minus the platform's $9,500 per-capita Year-15 target), equivalent to roughly 330 percent of Norway’s gross domestic product, accumulated from energy revenues that the United States generated more of and saved less of.

The American system relies on individuals to save individually, with individual outcomes that depend on individual judgment, individual luck, and individual access to financial institutions. The result is a country where most people enter retirement with inadequate savings despite living in the wealthiest country in human history. A pooled approach does not replace individual savings. It supplements them with a collective baseline that everyone has access to and that nobody has to construct alone.

Empirical Anchoring

Most policy debates fail because they are debates about values that are described in the language of facts. “What should the minimum wage be” is a values debate dressed in the language of economics. “What is the twenty-fifth percentile of actual wages currently paid for occupation X” is a question that the Bureau of Labor Statistics already answers every quarter. Anchoring policy decisions to data that the federal government already collects produces policy that is harder to attack as ideological and easier to defend as measured.

The platform described in this document anchors three different decisions to existing federal data: it sets wage floors based on actual wage distributions; it routes education funding based on actual labor market demand; and it sets education prices based on actual cost of delivery. In each case, the data exists. The proposal is to use it.

Transparency by Design

The third element is the simplest and the most important: every funding mechanism, every decision rule, and every disbursement is publicly visible. Norway publishes the holdings of its sovereign wealth fund every quarter. Every taxpayer can see exactly what the fund owns and what it has earned. The fund cannot be quietly redirected toward political purposes because it cannot be quietly anything. Transparency is not a procedural nicety; it is a structural defense against the corruption that has degraded similar institutions in other places.

These three foundations — pooled contribution, empirical anchoring, and transparency by design — are the architecture that supports each of the three pillars described in the rest of this document. Each pillar is an application of the same foundation to a different problem.

Pillar One: The Community Contribution Plan

The first pillar replaces the trajectory of Social Security with a hybrid system that honors every commitment to current and near-term retirees while building, in parallel, a structure that can sustain American retirement for generations.

What It Does

The current Social Security system phases out over a period long enough that no current beneficiary loses anything. Workers within ten years of retirement remain in the existing system and receive every dollar they have been promised. Younger workers transition to a new system over fifty years, with the transition managed by a Sovereign Investment Fund that accumulates capital from the new system’s contributions and uses its returns to honor the old system’s remaining obligations.

The new system itself is straightforward. Employers and employees jointly contribute twelve percent of wages, the same combined level as the current FICA contribution, with a small increase to fund the sovereign component. Eighty percent of the contribution flows into individual retirement accounts that workers own and can pass on to their families. Twenty percent flows into the Sovereign Fund, which invests in passive index instruments under a charter modeled on Norway’s, with statutory firewalls against political direction of investment decisions.

What the Math Shows

A standalone phase-out of Social Security with no replacement system requires roughly $63 trillion (per SSA Trustees' actuarial deficit projection over the 75-year horizon) in transition borrowing over sixty years. The math is straightforward: the system continues to owe benefits to grandfathered retirees while losing the contributions of younger workers, and the gap has to be borrowed. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

The combined reform produces a different result. The Sovereign Fund’s returns offset the legacy system’s deficit. Peak transition borrowing falls from $63 trillion (per SSA Trustees' actuarial deficit projection over the 75-year horizon) to approximately $82 billion. The reduction is 99.9 percent. A representative new entrant to the workforce — a 25-year-old earning $50,000 — retires at age 67 with approximately $1.23 million in personal account balance, generating approximately $49,000 in sustainable annual retirement income, roughly forty percent more than the current Social Security average benefit. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

The Sovereign Fund itself accumulates to approximately $122 trillion (per Combined Reform Model with 6% real return compounding over 60 years) over sixty years under conservative assumptions. This number is large enough to be worth pausing over. It represents a level of national wealth held in a transparent, professionally managed, politically insulated structure that the United States has never previously constructed.

Why It Works

The combination works because the two halves solve each other’s problems. The phase-out alone cannot work because pay-as-you-go obligations cannot be unwound without replacement revenue. The new contribution system alone takes too long to mature to meet near-term obligations. Run together, the new system’s growing fund directly subsidizes the old system’s shrinking deficit. By the time the old system has fully wound down, the new system has matured into something that produces retirement security at a scale the old system never approached.

“The argument is not whether to reform Social Security. The arithmetic forces reform within a decade. The argument is whether we reform it in a way that builds something better, or in a way that takes from people who have already paid in.”

Pillar Two: Empirical Wage Floors

The second pillar replaces the single national minimum wage with a system of role-specific wage floors derived from actual wage data, indexed to inflation, calibrated to real labor markets, and structured to support the people who do the work.

What It Does

Every job in the United States has a Standard Occupational Classification, maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The system contains roughly 460 broad occupations covering essentially every kind of work that people do. The Bureau already publishes detailed wage data for each occupation every quarter, including wage distributions, geographic variation, and industry breakdowns. The data exists.

This pillar adds one piece of information to the federal tax system: every taxpayer’s broad occupation, reported on Form W-2 alongside the existing wage information. With this addition, the federal government can produce wage distributions for every occupation in real time, and can establish wage floors at, for example, the twenty-fifth percentile of actual wages currently paid for that occupation. The floor is set by the market itself, not by political negotiation. It binds on employers paying below the bottom quarter of their peer set in each occupation. Workers paid above the floor are unaffected. Above-floor pay flexibility for high-skill or high-performing workers is preserved entirely.

Floors are recalibrated annually using a smoothed three-year moving average of wage data, capturing structural shifts in the labor market as they accumulate while damping year-to-year volatility. Because each year's recalibration incorporates the most recent wage data, nominal wage growth including inflation is captured automatically; no separate inflation indexing is required.

What the Math Shows

The empirical analysis covers eighty-one broad occupations spanning all major occupational groups, representing approximately eighty-two million American workers. The twenty-fifth percentile floor varies enormously across occupations, from approximately ten dollars per hour for the lowest-wage roles to approximately ninety-two dollars per hour for the highest. The weighted-average floor across the workforce works out to approximately twenty-one dollars per hour, equivalent to roughly forty-three thousand dollars per year.

The variation itself is the point. A single national minimum wage, at any level, is the wrong tool for a labor market this differentiated. A registered nurse and a fast-food worker do not have the same labor market and should not be protected by the same floor. The empirical approach produces floors that fit the actual structure of the work being done.

Even the lowest twenty-fifth-percentile floor in the analysis exceeds the current federal minimum wage. The market has moved; the floor has not. The proposal does not create new wage levels. It captures wage levels that already exist and applies them as floors against employers paying below the actual market.

Why It Works

The strongest argument for this approach is that it sidesteps the ideological debate that has paralyzed minimum wage policy for decades. Critics of higher minimum wages argue that government should not dictate wages. This proposal does not dictate wages; it observes them. The floor is set by what employers in each occupation are already paying. A critic arguing the floor is too high is arguing against the market itself, which is a much harder position to hold.

The empirical literature supports the approach. The 2024 systematic review by Dube and Zipperer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the median own-wage elasticity of employment across studies of modest minimum wage increases is approximately negative four hundredths — effectively zero. California’s 2024 fast-food minimum wage increase to twenty dollars per hour produced no measurable employment loss, with employers passing through approximately half of higher labor costs in modestly higher prices. The economic case that twenty-fifth-percentile floors produce minimal disemployment is now substantially stronger than it was a decade ago.

“When a company succeeds, the workers who contribute to that success should not be left behind. The principle is simple. The mechanism to honor it is what we have not built.”

Pillar Three: The Sovereign Education Fund

The third pillar funds higher education through a combination of birth-seeded individual accounts and disbursements from the Sovereign Fund at maturity, paired with a cost-based pricing framework that flags institutions charging substantially above the actual cost of delivering education.

What It Does

Every American newborn is enrolled in a Sovereign Education Fund with a seed contribution of five thousand dollars. The fund is pooled rather than individual, so that growth in years of strong returns benefits everyone in subsequent cohorts and weak returns are absorbed by the fund as a whole rather than by unlucky individuals. The fund grows through investment returns over the seventeen years before its first cohort reaches college age, accumulating approximately four hundred billion dollars before its first disbursement.

At year eighteen, when the first cohort reaches college, the Sovereign Fund (the same fund that is supporting Social Security transition) begins disbursing approximately one percent of its annual balance to the Education Fund. This is the architectural innovation. The Sovereign Fund, by year eighteen, is large enough that even a small percentage of its balance produces substantial annual capacity for education funding. The two funds become a single connected system: the retirement engine produces the education capacity.

Citizens may pursue education from age seventeen through age thirty, the funding window during which the Sovereign Education Fund covers tuition and required fees. The Fund does not cap the number of fields, the number of credentials, or the type of program a citizen may pursue within the window. Continued funding is conditioned on academic performance: the citizen is passing the standards of the program in which they are enrolled. Specialized programs (medicine, law, engineering, sciences) carry higher per-credential costs reflecting their delivery requirements; the Fund pays those higher costs without separately rationing access. Vocational and community-college programs are equally valid pursuit paths. The architectural commitment is that education is welcomed and encouraged, not rationed.

Cost-Based Pricing

The funding mechanism is paired with a cost-based pricing framework that addresses the other half of the education affordability problem. Current college sticker prices are set by what the market will bear, not by what education costs to deliver. A baseline calculation from component costs — faculty compensation, academic support, facilities, student services, and capped administrative overhead — produces a per-student-per-year cost of approximately fifteen thousand dollars at a regional public four-year institution. Institution-type multipliers adjust this baseline upward for legitimate cost variations: research-intensive programs run roughly forty-five percent more, specialized programs roughly twice the baseline.

Institutions participating in the Sovereign Education Fund commit to pricing at or below the cost-based baseline calculated for their type and field of study. Pricing above the baseline is not permitted for participating institutions — the cost-based formula functions as a price ceiling for participating institutions, mechanically tied to actual delivery costs rather than to political ceilings on federal benefits. This eliminates the pricing-to-the-maximum dynamic that has driven cost inflation in existing federal aid programs. Critically, the platform’s commitment is to the student, not to the institution. Every American who pursues education receives the same baseline disbursement regardless of where they choose to attend. At a participating institution pricing at the cost-based baseline, the disbursement covers full cost. At a non-participating institution pricing above the baseline, the disbursement covers the equivalent baseline cost, and the student is responsible for any gap. The educational opportunity is universal; the institutional choice is the student’s. This mirrors the architecture of the GI Bill, where veterans received fixed benefits they could carry to any accredited institution, with the institution accepting what the student brought rather than extracting more public money based on its own pricing.

The cost-based formula extends to field-of-study granularity. A computer science program legitimately costs more to deliver than an English literature program because of equipment, faculty market wages, and lab infrastructure. The formula captures these differences using observable data: faculty market wages from Bureau of Labor Statistics occupational data, equipment and facility costs from Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System reporting, and standard support costs. Each component is statistically anchored to peer institutions rather than negotiated with individual institutions. Institutional cost claims above what the data shows peer institutions actually incur become visible as outliers and trigger review. Institutions remain free to spend whatever they choose internally — from endowments, research grants, or other sources — but cannot bill participating students for amounts above the formula’s output. This is the structural anti-padding mechanism: the system pays only what peer-institution data demonstrates education actually costs to deliver, regardless of what an individual institution chooses to charge.

Disbursements flow institution-to-institution through the federal payment infrastructure. The student does not handle disbursement funds directly. The institution receives payment for tuition and required fees at the cost-based pricing baseline upon enrollment verification. Students may submit personal education-related expenses for reimbursement; eligible reimbursement categories are defined explicitly in authorizing legislation and published as a structured list rather than evaluated case-by-case. Eligible categories include required textbooks and course materials, technology meeting specified specifications, transportation passes for commuting students, professional licensing examination fees for students completing programs requiring those examinations, and similar education-direct costs with clear per-category sublimits. Approval is mechanical against the published list rather than discretionary, which produces predictable rules students can plan around and removes the discretionary surface that creates both fraud opportunities and equity problems. Disbursements continue throughout the citizen's enrollment within the age-seventeen-to-thirty funding window as long as academic-performance requirements are met.

What the Math Shows

Birth-seed contributions alone are insufficient to fund free college. The eighteen-year compound horizon, while powerful, cannot produce enough per-student capital to cover full educational costs at any politically tolerable seed level. This is the honest finding of the analysis.

Combined with Sovereign Fund disbursements at one percent of balance annually, the picture changes. By year eighteen, the system covers full cohort education costs. By year sixty, the Education Fund itself has accumulated approximately eighteen trillion dollars while paying full college costs annually for every cohort. The system is not just sustainable; it is generative. Total education disbursements over sixty years exceed fifteen trillion dollars.

Why It Works

The combination works for the same reason the retirement combination works: the two halves solve each other’s problems. Birth-seed funding alone cannot produce enough capital. Cost-based pricing alone does not solve the affordability problem for low-income students. Run together, they make college genuinely affordable: the funding mechanism provides the resources, the pricing framework ensures the resources are spent on actual education delivery rather than administrative growth.

Honest acknowledgment: the one percent disbursement from the Sovereign Fund slows the retirement fund’s growth. There is no free lunch in the architecture. What the architecture does is direct the wealth that compound investment produces toward shared social infrastructure rather than unbounded individual accumulation. That is a values choice, not a math trick. The math simply shows that the choice is feasible.

“When the financial constraint on education is removed, what remains is desire and capacity. People who want to learn will learn. The country gets better at almost everything as a result.”

Welcomed and Encouraged, Not Limited

The Pillar Three architecture has been substantially expanded in v3.7.14 from the prior credit-cap framework. Education is welcomed and encouraged, not limited. The Sovereign Education Fund no longer caps the number of fields or credentials a citizen may pursue within the age-thirty funding window. Citizens may pursue one field or many; one credential or several; vocational training or doctoral study. The only constraints on continued funding are two: the student is passing the academic standards of the program they are pursuing, and they are within the age-thirty window. The architectural choice not to cap pursuit is deliberate: most citizens do not want indefinite schooling, the natural ceiling is biological and social and motivational, and the marginal population-level cost of removing the cap is small. The values signal is substantial.

Doctoral programs are now covered. The Fund pays tuition for research doctorates and professional doctorates alike, and provides living stipends at the Pillar Two occupation-specific wage floor for educator-or-researcher-in-training at the geographic location. This replaces the prior doctoral-funding ecosystem in which research doctorates in well-funded fields rely on intense year-to-year grant scrambling, research doctorates in underfunded fields are often only partially funded, and professional doctorates produce debt burdens that distort career choice for decades. With Fund-provided tuition and stipends, federal research grants pivot to funding research itself, strengthening research capacity per grant dollar.

Institutions participating in the Sovereign Education Fund must have approved curricula. The approval framework is built backwards from defined job fields: institutions demonstrate that their curricula cover the competencies and tasks required for jobs in the field. General-education content is preserved alongside field-specific competency requirements. Liberal-arts paths and first-year exploration tracks are explicitly valid. Content within the competency-coverage requirement remains the institution's decision, preserving academic freedom and institutional differentiation.

Credit transfer follows a substance-of-content test. General-education credits transfer universally. Field-specific credits transfer based on the documented overlap between what a course covers and what the destination field requires. Students who pivot between fields keep the credits whose content applies to the new field; they lose only credits whose content is field-specific and does not transfer. No time penalty applies to pivots within the age-thirty window.

When a student is struggling academically, the institution is obligated to attempt intervention. Struggling is detected through four signals: grade-based triggers, attendance-based triggers, faculty-flagged concerns, and student-initiated requests. The intervention pathway has four lines: academic-advisor first contact; specialized resource hand-off (tutoring, mental-health counseling, disability services, financial counseling, case management); case-manager coordination for multi-need students; and immediate crisis intervention regardless of pathway when crisis indicators appear. Intervention is offered, not imposed; only safety risks override student declination. Records of interventions are kept separately from academic transcripts.

A federal liaison is assigned to each campus participating in the Sovereign Education Fund. The liaison is federally employed, trained on the Pillar Three architecture, and physically on-campus with substantial integration into institutional operations. The liaison's role is to preserve consistency in implementation of the Pillar Three architecture across the four thousand or more degree-granting institutions in the United States. The model is parallel to USDA Cooperative Extension agents at land-grant universities: federally employed subject-matter experts deeply integrated into institutional communities, serving as bidirectional channels between federal program design and local institutional implementation. The liaison's authority is primarily advisory, with specific compliance functions where consistency is essential.

Pillar Three's expanded architecture is detailed in the Sovereign Education Fund Substantiation document in the Analytical Framing folder, including cost estimates (approximately one hundred eighty to two hundred fifty billion dollars annually at steady state, approximately two and a half to three and a half percent of Sovereign Fund expected returns), the counselor workforce buildout required to deliver the student-support architecture, and the six Section 47 OPEN items added to track external-expertise needs for the expanded design.

Pillar Four: Universal Healthcare Access

Healthcare is public infrastructure. The argument that markets allocate healthcare efficiently has been tested empirically against the experience of every other developed nation, and the results are not favorable to the market hypothesis. The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country while producing health outcomes that lag most peer nations. Universal Healthcare Access addresses this through a German-style multi-payer architecture: regulated insurance markets with universal coverage mandates and price controls negotiated at the national level, integrated with the existing employer-based system through transition rather than displacement.

The funding mechanism is a 4% employer / 2% employee payroll contribution modeled on the Medicare Hospital Insurance tax expanded to cover full medical care. The per-capita target of $9,500 is set above Germany's $8,000 (which already includes basic dental and basic vision per the German GKV (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) standard) and below Switzerland's $12,000. Coverage matches the German GKV scope: medical care, prescription drugs (with copays), basic dental (preventive and restorative — fillings, extractions, periodontal treatment), and basic vision (eye exams and eye disease treatment). Orthodontic and prescription correction are covered for children only; cosmetic dentistry is excluded. Long-term care and hearing aids remain outside the scope as honest acknowledged gaps. For full substantiation see the Healthcare Transition Detailed Plan and the universal healthcare Model in folders 04 and 05.

Pillar Five: Universal Childcare

Childcare is workforce infrastructure. When parents cannot work because care is unavailable or unaffordable, the entire economy loses the productivity those workers would have contributed. The cost falls disproportionately on women, whose workforce participation is materially affected by childcare availability and cost. Universal Childcare addresses this through a Quebec-model architecture: parent co-pays capped at approximately $10 per day per child (~$2,500 per year), the rest covered through public funding.

The funding mechanism is a 0.8 percent employer / 0.5 percent employee payroll contribution. The platform commits to covering approximately 12 million children at full buildout (a 12-year phase-in extended to 18 years to honestly reflect workforce capacity constraints in the childcare sector). Quebec's program produced an 8 to 10 percentage-point increase in mothers' labor force participation; the platform expects similar directional effects in the United States. Universal Childcare also operates as one of the platform's three indirect mechanisms reducing the gender pay gap (see Gender Pay Gap and Indirect Mechanisms). For full substantiation see the universal childcare Model in folder 04.

Pillar Six: Universal Mental Health Access

Mental health treatment is healthcare. The artificial separation of behavioral and physical health in the US insurance system is a historical accident that produces treatment gaps, financial hardship, and worse outcomes for both individuals and the economy. Approximately 60 million Americans need mental health treatment in any given year; approximately 30 million are currently untreated, primarily because access is constrained by cost, insurance coverage gaps, or workforce shortages.

Universal Mental Health Access provides voluntary access at no cost to all Americans, funded through a 0.5 percent employer / 0.3 percent employee payroll contribution. Workforce capacity is adequate at approximately 40 percent utilization assumptions, with telehealth multiplying effective capacity by approximately 2x. The pillar's design emphasizes that distribution rather than raw supply is the core problem: existing US mental health workforce is sufficient, but is poorly distributed across regions and populations. For full substantiation see the Universal Mental Health Access Substantiation document and Universal Mental Health Model in folders 04 and 05.

Pillar Seven: Civic Infrastructure

Civic infrastructure is the institutional capacity for self-governance. Energy grid modernization, universal broadband access, modernized civic engagement, Civic Technology, and physical Civic Infrastructure (water, transportation, public buildings) are all components. Each requires collective provision because no individual can construct it alone, and each operates on different time horizons than current consumption commitments.

The Civic Infrastructure pillar was added in v2.3 of the platform after the original three pillars were drafted, in response to the observation that the platform was implicitly assuming functioning Civic Infrastructure without committing to its maintenance and modernization. Funding draws on Sovereign Fund disbursements at maturity rather than payroll contributions, on the principle that long-horizon infrastructure investment is appropriately funded through investment returns rather than current-year payroll. Substantiation documents in folder 05 cover each component (Universal Broadband, Modernize Civic Engagement, Civic Technology, Physical Civic Infrastructure) with associated mathematical models in folder 04. The platform funds broadband and cellular infrastructure through federal ownership of the underlying fiber, with companies paying a Federal Infrastructure Fee for using the federally-owned infrastructure. The fee replaces the Universal Service Fund and consolidates state telecom taxes into a single federal mechanism. Annual fee target of approximately thirty-four billion dollars per year recovers federal capital deployment, operations and maintenance, and future capacity reserve. The architecture follows the regulatory tradition of turnpike tolls, airport landing fees, and other use fees for public infrastructure.

Pillar Eight: Universal Paid Family Time

The eighth pillar provides federal paid leave for parental, caregiver, and personal medical circumstances. The United States is one of very few developed nations without a federal paid family leave commitment; existing federal law provides only unpaid leave to a subset of workers. Pillar Eight closes this gap through a dedicated federal program providing wage replacement during qualifying leave events: parental leave following birth, adoption, or foster placement; caregiver leave for serious illness of a family member; and personal medical leave for the worker's own serious health condition. Each leave category is up to twelve weeks per qualifying event.

The program is funded through a dedicated payroll contribution at approximately 0.4 percent of covered wages, split as 0.25 percent employer / 0.15 percent employee, following the platform's standard contribution convention in which the employer share is the larger of the two. Self-employed workers pay the combined rate on net self-employment income with the standard deductibility treatment. Annual program cost at maturity is approximately forty to sixty billion dollars per year, calibrated to the contribution rate. Several states have implemented their own paid family leave programs and continue to do so; Pillar Eight operates as a federal floor, with state programs continuing to provide benefits above the federal minimum.

Pillar Eight complements existing platform commitments. Universal Childcare addresses care during the working period after parental leave; Pillar Eight addresses the leave period itself. Universal Healthcare addresses medical treatment cost during personal medical events; Pillar Eight addresses lost-wage replacement during recovery. The Aging In Place Implications and Multigenerational Households documents had identified the informal-caregiver wage-replacement gap as an unaddressed platform concern; Pillar Eight closes that gap. Detailed specification is in the dedicated Pillar Eight document, published as 02_Universal_Paid_Family_Time_Pillar.docx.

Pillar Nine: Universal Long-Term Care

Long-term care is the platform's ninth pillar, added in v3.3.0 to address the visible gap in the platform's prior architecture. Approximately fifteen million Americans currently need long-term services and supports; the number is projected to grow as the baby-boomer cohort ages into seventy-five and older. Long-term care expenditures total approximately $475 billion per year in formal spending, with unpaid family caregiving valued at approximately $600 billion on top of that. Most Americans become eligible for Medicaid long-term care benefits only after spending down their assets to near-poverty levels, a structurally cruel feature of the current system that turns aging-related care needs into mandatory impoverishment.

Pillar Nine establishes universal access to long-term services and supports through a 1.0 percent combined payroll contribution split as 0.6 percent employer / 0.4 percent employee. The contribution generates approximately $250 billion per year in steady-state revenue. Coverage includes home and community-based services (the platform's preferred-default care setting), institutional care for individuals whose functional limitations cannot safely be supported at home, adult day services, respite care to support family caregivers, assistive technology and home modifications, and care coordination. Eligibility is based on functional assessment using a standardized instrument; there is no asset spend-down, no income test, and no marriage-status-dependent eligibility rule.

The transition occurs over approximately a fifteen-year horizon, parallel to the transition periods used for Pillar Four and Pillar Five. Pillar Nine is integrated with Pillar Four (Universal Healthcare Access) for medically-coded long-term care, with Pillar Six (Universal Mental Health Access) for individuals with cognitive or psychiatric care components, and with Pillar Eight (Universal Paid Family Time) for working-age individuals providing care to family members. Pillar Nine eliminates the Medicaid asset spend-down for long-term care; existing federal Medicaid LTC expenditures (approximately $200 billion per year) and state-level long-term care expenditures (approximately $120 billion per year) provide substantial offsetting savings as enrollment shifts to the new program. The platform's high-earner architecture provides backstop revenue for any residual gap. Detailed substantiation is in 05_Universal_Long_Term_Care_Substantiation.docx; advocacy organization adoption guidance is in 05_Pillars_Borrow_Independently.docx.

Pillar Ten: Federal Housing Investment

Housing is the platform's tenth pillar, added in v3.4.0 to address the visible gap in the platform's prior architecture. The United States faces an estimated four to seven million unit shortage in housing supply, concentrated at the affordable-rental end of the market. The federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program serves approximately five million households but has waitlists of four to seven years in most major metropolitan areas; only roughly one quarter of eligible households actually receive the assistance they qualify for. Pillar Ten closes this gap by elevating federal housing investment to a pillar of the platform alongside healthcare, childcare, mental health, and the others.

Pillar Ten differs from the platform's payroll-funded pillars in funding architecture. Housing supply is largely state and local; rental assistance is geographically variable in cost; the federal role is more about funding and conditioning than direct provision. Pillar Ten therefore uses federal general revenue drawn from the platform's high-earner architecture (graduated income surcharge plus wealth surcharge above ten million plus wealth tax above fifty million) plus existing federal housing program substitution as the platform displaces the current patchwork. Aggregate commitment at full implementation: approximately one hundred forty-five billion per year (approximately seventy billion absorbed from existing federal housing programs plus approximately seventy-five billion in net new federal commitment). This makes Pillar Ten parallel to Pillar One in funding architecture rather than to Pillars Four through Six and Eight through Nine.

Pillar Ten has five components. First: universal rental assistance for households below approximately fifty percent of area median income, eliminating the Section 8 waitlist and reaching all eligible households; estimated cost approximately seventy to one hundred billion per year combining current Section 8 spending with incremental federal commitment. Second: federal-state conditional grants for housing supply expansion, with grant access tied to zoning reform conditions including by-right approval for missing-middle housing, density bonuses, and reduced regulatory barriers; estimated grant flow approximately ten to twenty-five billion per year. Third: public housing capital investment of approximately ten billion per year to address the deferred maintenance backlog and reverse the multi-decade trend of public housing unit loss. Fourth: supportive housing for special populations including chronically-homeless individuals, integrated with Pillar Six (mental health) and Pillar Nine (long-term care); estimated cost approximately five to ten billion per year. Fifth: Housing First federal funding for state and local homelessness response with evidence-based program designs; estimated cost approximately three to five billion per year. The transition is approximately fifteen to twenty years, somewhat longer than payroll-funded pillars because housing supply expansion is constrained by construction cycles, zoning reform timelines, and workforce capacity. Detailed substantiation is in 05_Federal_Housing_Investment_Substantiation.docx; advocacy organization adoption guidance is in 05_Pillars_Borrow_Independently.docx.

Pillar Eleven: Climate Architecture

Climate is the platform's eleventh pillar, added in v3.5.0. The United States emits approximately five billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent annually, contributing approximately fifteen percent of global emissions despite housing approximately four percent of global population. Climate change is the largest collective-action challenge facing the country and the world; market signals do not internalize the externalities imposed by greenhouse gas emissions; voluntary mitigation has proven inadequate at the necessary scale and speed; existing federal climate policy is a patchwork of subsidies, regulations, and state-level cap-and-trade programs that does not provide an economy-wide price signal.

Pillar Eleven establishes an economy-wide upstream carbon price applied to fossil fuels at the point of extraction or import, starting at fifty dollars per metric ton CO2-equivalent in year one and rising to one hundred dollars per metric ton over an approximately ten-year transition. Coverage reaches approximately seventy-five to eighty percent of U.S. CO2-equivalent emissions; a border adjustment mechanism applies the carbon price to imported goods based on embedded carbon content. Total carbon-price revenue at maturity is approximately three hundred to four hundred billion dollars per year, ramping from approximately one hundred fifty to two hundred billion per year at the starting price as the price rises and as covered emissions decline due to the price's incentive effect.

Revenue is split fifty-fifty between two principal mechanisms. Half is returned to U.S. residents as an equal per-capita carbon dividend (with adjustments for household composition: each adult receives an equal share, each child receives a half-share capped at two children per household). At maturity, the per-adult dividend is approximately six hundred to seven hundred dollars per year, with a four-person household receiving approximately two thousand dollars per year. The dividend is not means-tested; the carbon-price-plus-dividend distributional effect is progressive on net for households below approximately the seventieth percentile of household income. The other half is allocated to clean-energy infrastructure investment (approximately twenty-five percent of total revenue), transmission grid modernization (approximately ten percent), just-transition support for fossil-fuel-dependent communities and workers (approximately ten percent), and clean-energy innovation programs (approximately five percent). Pillar Eleven differs from pure-dividend carbon-pricing approaches (the Climate Leadership Council's Carbon Dividends Plan; the Citizens Climate Lobby's Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act) in this hybrid revenue allocation; the architectural choice reflects the platform's view that the price signal is necessary but not sufficient at the scale and speed required by climate science. Detailed substantiation is in 05_Climate_Architecture_Substantiation.docx; advocacy organization adoption guidance is in 05_Pillars_Borrow_Independently.docx.

Pillar Twelve: Immigration Architecture

Immigration is the platform's twelfth and final pillar in the v4.0.0 architecture proposal sequence, added in v3.6.0. The U.S. immigration system is foundational infrastructure that affects nearly every other policy domain: workforce supply across healthcare, agriculture, construction, and technology; fiscal sustainability through Social Security and tax base contributions over the long horizon; housing demand and supply; healthcare workforce capacity; the pipelines into education and civic life. The current system is a decades-long stalemate: approximately eleven million long-resident undocumented immigrants live in legal limbo with no pathway to status; the asylum case backlog exceeds three million cases with five-to-seven year waits; legal immigration processing has multi-year delays; per-country caps produce decades-long waits for some nationalities; the workforce visa system has unfilled categories alongside categories with massive oversubscription; refugee admissions have been dramatically reduced from historical norms then partially restored; integration support is patchwork and underfunded.

Pillar Twelve is comprehensive immigration reform structured as a coherent policy architecture with six components: pathway to legal status for long-resident undocumented immigrants over a multi-year process with vetting, fees, English-language proficiency, and earned naturalization track; legal immigration modernization including increased employment-based and family-based allocations and elimination of per-country caps; asylum and refugee processing capacity expansion with backlog elimination and refugee admissions framework restoration; workforce visa reform across H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, and shortage-occupation pathways with new visa categories for healthcare workforce shortages; integration support with federal investment in English-language instruction, civic integration, and naturalization preparation; and border management modernization focused on ports of entry where the substantial majority of fentanyl actually enters, with cooperation frameworks with Mexico and Central America.

Pillar Twelve is funded by federal general revenue supplemented by user fees that already fund the substantial majority of USCIS operations. Aggregate gross federal commitment at full implementation: approximately thirty to fifty billion dollars per year. Net fiscal impact: positive on the 10-to-20-year horizon. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017 consensus report concluded that immigrants and their descendants are a substantial net fiscal positive over the long horizon. CBO scoring of S.744 (2013 comprehensive reform) projected approximately one trillion in deficit reduction over twenty years; subsequent comparable proposals have produced similar magnitudes. Pillar Twelve's gross expenditure is more than offset by tax revenue increases over the medium-to-long horizon. The transition is approximately fifteen years. Detailed substantiation is in 05_Immigration_Architecture_Substantiation.docx; advocacy organization adoption guidance is in 05_Pillars_Borrow_Independently.docx. v3.6.0 completes the v4.0.0 architecture proposal sequence: the platform now has its full twelve-pillar set in place.

How the Pillars Reinforce Each Other

Each pillar above can be defended on its own merits. What makes the architecture more than the sum of its parts is the way the pillars feed each other.

Workers earning wage-floor wages contribute meaningfully to the Sovereign Fund. A worker earning the empirical wage floor for their occupation contributes more to the Sovereign Fund than a worker earning the current federal minimum wage. The retirement system is funded by the labor system. When the labor system works, the retirement system works.

The Sovereign Fund’s growth funds education at maturity. When the retirement fund reaches the scale where small disbursements produce large absolute amounts, education becomes affordable for the next generation. The retirement system funds the education system.

The education system produces workers who command wage-floor wages. Educated workers are more productive workers, and the wage-floor system ensures they are paid for their productivity. The education system funds the labor system.

The structure is circular by design. Each pillar produces the resources that the next pillar requires. None of them stand alone. Together, they make a system that compounds over time rather than degrading over time, which is the opposite of what the current structure does.

This circularity is what distinguishes the architecture from typical reform proposals. Most policies address one problem in isolation, succeed on their own terms, and fail to address the structural conditions that produced the problem in the first place. The architecture described here addresses three problems together because the three problems are connected.

How the Platform Engages Political Reality

This platform was not designed to be a partisan instrument. It was designed to address structural problems in American economic life: the retirement security collapse, the wage-productivity decoupling, the educational debt crisis, the healthcare cost spiral, the absence of universal childcare, the inadequacy of mental health access, and the underinvestment in Civic Infrastructure. These problems do not have a political party. Anyone reaching retirement age, anyone working a wage job, anyone with a child in school, and anyone navigating the American healthcare system encounters them, regardless of how they vote.

The platform's structural design reflects a deliberate effort to combine features that different political traditions have historically valued. This is not centrism in the sense of splitting differences. It is an attempt to take seriously the legitimate concerns that different traditions raise about social policy and to design an architecture that addresses those concerns rather than dismissing them. A reader from any political tradition will find features that align with their priors, and other features that may challenge them. The platform is offered for evaluation on its merits, not on its partisan coding.

How the Platform Engages Conservative Concerns About Social Policy

The platform addresses several concerns conservative traditions have historically raised about social policy. On retirement: existing pensioners are explicitly protected with no benefit cuts to current Social Security recipients, vested rights are preserved, and the new Hybrid Retirement System features mandatory individual accounts that workers own and that are heritable. Account ownership and inheritance address the concern that traditional Social Security gives workers no asset to pass to heirs. On governance: the Sovereign Investment Fund operates under the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global model with statutory firewalls preventing political direction of investment decisions, addressing the concern that large public funds become politically directed. On taxation: the wage floor exemption replaces the standard deduction in the federal tax architecture, substantially reducing federal tax burden for working-class households — a tax cut for the working class through the federal income tax system. On educational funding: the Sovereign Education Fund delivers per-student dollars that follow the student rather than flowing to institutions, and cost-based pricing prevents institutions from inflating prices when more funding is available. On childcare: the Quebec parental cap model provides parental choice of provider rather than government-operated daycare, addressing the concern that universal childcare means government raising children. On healthcare: the German-style multi-payer system explicitly is not a single-payer Medicare for All design and preserves market competition among insurers, addressing the concern that universal healthcare means single-payer government health insurance. On wage policy: occupation-specific wage floors are set by labor market data (the 25th percentile of actual wages currently paid, recalibrated every three years) rather than by legislative negotiation, addressing the concern that minimum wages are set politically without reference to actual market conditions. On fiscal discipline: the platform includes a Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis with explicit sensitivity sections for behavioral economics uptake risk, state cooperation refusal risk, and Sovereign Fund return risk; the Combined Reform Model includes stress testing under five adverse scenarios. The platform's commitments are honestly accounted with the trade-offs made explicit. These design choices do not make the platform a conservative project — its scale ($4.2 trillion in new federal commitments at mature steady state) and its universal architecture mean conservative critics will object on legitimate grounds — but they reflect serious engagement with concerns conservative traditions have historically raised about social policy.

Features Progressive Traditions Have Historically Valued

Universal access is the architectural commitment: universal healthcare for every American regardless of employment status, universal childcare regardless of household income, Universal Mental Health access regardless of insurance, universal broadband regardless of geographic location. The Sovereign Education Fund eliminates student debt for new generations through cost-based pricing combined with per-student fund disbursement. The Founding Stake provides every American newborn with seed capital that compounds for eighteen years, building wealth at the population level rather than concentrating it. The Civic Infrastructure pillar invests substantially in public goods: water and sanitation, energy grid modernization, Civic Technology, public spaces, journalism. Federal program integration absorbs Medicare and Medicaid working-age coverage into a unified universal architecture, expanding rather than contracting federal commitment to American wellbeing. The wage floor exemption is progressive in distributional effect, with working-class households receiving proportionally larger reductions in federal tax burden than upper-income households. The Sovereign Fund accumulates approximately $122 trillion in public wealth over sixty years, available for collective benefit rather than concentrated in private hands. The platform's transition design ensures no household is worse off through the Refundable Transition Bridge Credit, and explicit attention is given to households that have historically fallen through gaps in social policy.

Features Moderate and Cross-Partisan Traditions Have Historically Valued

The platform deploys over thirty to sixty years rather than producing abrupt structural change. Existing federal programs are largely absorbed and restructured rather than eliminated, preserving institutional knowledge and continuity for the populations those programs serve. Federal-state cooperation is the operating mode rather than federal preemption; states retain meaningful policy choice within the platform's universal commitments. The Refundable Transition Bridge Credit ensures that the headline household savings figures are achieved without anyone being made worse off during the transition period. Stress testing under adverse scenarios — including economic stagnation, demographic shock, and compound crises — is built into the foundational analytical work rather than treated as a downstream consideration. The platform addresses fiscal questions explicitly through the Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis rather than treating fiscal feasibility as an afterthought. Policy choices are framed as design decisions to be made through ordinary legislative process, with no constitutional reform proposed.

These groupings are descriptive, not prescriptive. A reader who identifies with one tradition need not endorse all features in that tradition's column, and the platform's design will face real political opposition from voices within each tradition. Progressive critics may object that the platform is not Medicare for All, does not directly address housing supply or immigration policy, and preserves elements of the existing market-based healthcare system. Conservative critics may object that $4.2 trillion per year in new federal commitments at mature steady state is substantial, that the Sovereign Investment Fund creates an unprecedented federal financial entity, and that universal benefits without work tests change the historical relationship between contribution and entitlement. Moderate critics may object that the platform's deployment timeline is too long for the urgency of present problems, or alternately too compressed for orderly institutional change.

The argument here is not that the platform satisfies every political tradition. The argument is that the platform addresses real structural problems with a genuinely cross-cutting design, and that it deserves evaluation on its substantive merits rather than dismissal based on partisan coding. American policy reform is hard precisely because the structural problems require sustained cross-partisan work. The platform is offered as a foundation for that work.

A Companion Document on AI Workforce Transition

The political-reality framing above engages the platform on the terms it was originally written: a fairness-grounded argument for shared prosperity. A separate companion document, Built For What's Coming: The Platform as AI Workforce Transition Infrastructure, develops the platform's case from a different starting point that does not depend on any commitment to fairness. The argument there is that even a reader whose primary concern is economic stability rather than fairness, who is skeptical of redistributive language and who would prefer to leave market mechanisms in place, has reason to want this architecture in place when AI workforce displacement reshapes the labor market in the coming decade.

The platform's AI-resilience properties are largely emergent rather than designed: the Sovereign Wealth Fund accumulating to $122 trillion over 60 years provides a buffer against AI-displacement income loss; universal healthcare and childcare access decouple essential security from employment; wage floors as tax architecture provide a floor that does not depend on labor-market conditions; the Federal Infrastructure Fee creates consumer protection that does not require active labor force participation. Built For What's Coming articulates these properties as a deliberate case for citizens whose values lead with economic stability rather than equity. Both framings are honest; both are available; readers can engage with whichever motivates them.

How the Platform Has Grown — and What It Still Does Not Address

Honesty about what is not in this document is as important as clarity about what is.

When this manifesto was first written, the platform consisted of three primary pillars: the Community Contribution Plan, Empirical Wage Floors, and the Sovereign Education Fund. Universal healthcare was acknowledged as adjacent — important, solvable, but requiring its own dedicated funding mechanism and institutional design that had not yet been worked out. Since then, that work has been done. The platform now includes universal healthcare as a formally substantiated adjacent pillar, modeled on the German and Japanese multi-payer systems with universal coverage funded through a 4% employer / 2% employee payroll contribution and integration with the existing employer-based system. The substantiation, transition plan, and mathematical model are in folders 03 through 05. Universal Healthcare is now part of what the platform proposes. As of v2.21, the universal healthcare commitment explicitly enumerates its coverage scope: medical care, prescription drugs, mental health treatment (under the separate Universal Mental Health Access pillar), basic dental (preventive and restorative — cleanings, exams, fillings, extractions, periodontal treatment) at 100 percent with orthodontic care for children only and cosmetic dentistry excluded, and basic vision (eye examinations and treatment of eye diseases) at 100 percent with prescription correction covered for children only. Long-term care and hearing aids remain outside the scope and are flagged as honest acknowledged gaps that future platform versions could address.

Universal childcare has followed the same path. It was originally acknowledged as adjacent — solvable, with international precedents (Quebec's $10/day system being the closest model), but requiring distinct analysis and a distinct funding mechanism. That analysis has now been completed. The platform includes universal childcare as a formally substantiated adjacent pillar, funded through a 0.8% employer / 0.5% employee payroll contribution. Universal Mental Health Access was added in v2.2 with similar substantiation, funded through a 0.5% employer / 0.3% employee payroll contribution. The three adjacent pillars — Healthcare, Childcare, Mental Health — are now part of the platform alongside the original three primary pillars. The total architecture is six pillars plus the Civic Infrastructure pillar added in v2.3 for shared physical and digital systems (broadband, transportation, water and sewer, public spaces, Civic Technology, energy grid). The citizen-facing tax-comparison documents in folder 05 reflect this full six-pillar-plus-infrastructure architecture.

Beyond the pillar architecture, the platform's analytical depth has expanded substantially over recent releases to address specific situations the original architecture treated implicitly. The platform now includes detailed analytical work on how the platform interacts with non-nuclear-family households (cohabiting unmarried couples, multigenerational households), with workers in non-standard employment relationships (public-sector workers under Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and TRICARE, the early-retiree gap), with means-tested federal programs (Section 8 housing vouchers, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance), with specific demographic groups (existing pensioners, non-citizens, residents of US territories, older Americans navigating long-term care arrangements), and with foundational implementation challenges (behavioral economics and uptake friction, federal-state cooperation requirements). This work documents what the platform addresses for these groups, what it does not, and the design choices that remain open. Readers interested in their own situation should consult the relevant analytical framing documents in the package; the table of contents lists each specifically.

The Sixteen Specific Situations the Platform Has Worked Out

The platform package now includes detailed analytical work on thirteen specific situations the original architecture treated implicitly. Each is documented in a dedicated analytical framing document with explicit Open Questions identifying remaining design choices. A reader whose own situation matches any of these should consult the relevant document for situation-specific analysis.

Behavioral economics and uptake friction. Examines the platform's exposure to predictable behavioral friction — how households actually engage with tax architecture, default-in mechanisms, and platform programs — and where the platform is architecturally protected versus exposed.

State-level cooperation requirements. Examines federal-state cooperation across the platform's commitments, identifies which programs require state cooperation to deliver fully, and analyzes federal-direct fallback options for states that may refuse cooperation.

Non-citizens and platform eligibility. Maps the platform's interaction with approximately 47 million non-citizens across lawful permanent residents, work-authorized non-citizens, mixed-status families, and unauthorized residents.

Cohabiting unmarried couples. Examines the platform's treatment of approximately 17 million Americans in cohabiting relationships outside marriage, and how the wage floor architecture and Bridge Credit handle these households.

Public-sector worker transitions. Examines the platform's interaction with approximately 22 million federal, state, and local government employees covered by FEHB, TRICARE, FERS, and various non-Section-218 retirement systems.

Existing pensioners and the platform. Examines the platform's commitments to approximately 75 million Americans receiving retirement income from at least one defined benefit source (Social Security retirees, Social Security Disability recipients, state and local government pensioners, federal civilian retirees, and others). Vested rights are preserved.

Section 8 housing and federal housing assistance. Examines the platform's interaction with approximately 5 million Section 8 voucher households and identifies the apparent-rent-increase dynamic that universal childcare and universal healthcare create in HUD income calculations.

TANF and cash assistance. Examines the platform's relationship to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and outlines three approaches to TANF restructuring (continued, partially restructured, replaced with refundable family assistance credit).

Multigenerational households. Examines the platform's treatment of approximately 24 million multigenerational households, where adult children live with parents, grandparents raise grandchildren, or three generations share housing.

Aging-in-place implications. Identifies long-term care as the platform's largest single coverage gap and maps the platform against approximately 12 million Americans in CCRCs, assisted living, nursing homes, and HCBS programs, plus approximately 53 million informal caregivers providing $400-500 billion annually in unpaid care.

US territories and the platform. Maps the platform against approximately 3.5 to 3.7 million US citizens and US nationals in Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, and examines distinctive federal tax structures and the Section 1108 territorial Medicaid funding cap.

Climate policy beyond grid modernization. Honest acknowledgment of the platform's largest scope omission. Maps what the Civic Infrastructure pillar's Energy Grid Modernization commitment addresses versus what the platform omits (carbon pricing, fossil fuel subsidies, environmental justice, climate adaptation, agricultural emissions, building efficiency).

Gender pay gap and indirect mechanisms. Examines how the platform's architecture would reduce the raw gender pay gap by an estimated 30 to 40 percent through three indirect mechanisms (universal childcare addressing the motherhood penalty, empirical wage floors raising pay in female-dominated occupations, universal healthcare reducing job-lock). Honestly acknowledges what the platform does NOT do (paid family leave, pay transparency, salary history bans, strengthened Equal Pay Act enforcement, comparable-worth frameworks) and outlines five design directions for future versions. (Source baseline: see Sources_And_Derivation_Convention.docx.)

These thirteen documents collectively raise approximately one hundred explicit Open Questions documenting design choices that remain unresolved before deployment. The platform does not pretend these questions are settled. A serious reviewer of the platform should engage with the Open Questions specifically; the platform's deployability depends on resolving them.

What the platform now includes, in summary: three primary pillars (Community Contribution Plan, Empirical Wage Floors, Sovereign Education Fund), three adjacent pillars (universal healthcare, universal childcare, Universal Mental Health Access), and the Civic Infrastructure pillar (Universal Broadband, Transportation, Water and Sewer, Public Spaces, Civic Technology, Energy Grid Modernization). All seven are substantiated with operational designs, cost models, and transition plans. The remaining items below are what the platform still does not address.

This platform does not address criminal justice reform, immigration policy, foreign policy, or environmental policy. These are real and important. They are not what this document is about. A platform that tries to include everything ends up advocating nothing in particular.

This platform does not propose disability insurance reform or survivors benefits reform. These programs serve millions of vulnerable Americans and require continued operation under any reform. They are addressed in the technical white paper but are not central to the platform vision.

This platform does not propose a constitutional convention or any restructuring of the basic forms of American government. The reforms described here can be enacted through ordinary legislation. The architecture works within the existing constitutional structure of the United States.

“A platform that proposes to fix everything proposes to fix nothing. This platform proposes to fix three things, well, with the analytical foundation to defend each.”

Who This Is For

This document is written for several audiences. Each will find different things useful.

For the General Reader

If you are an American citizen who believes the country can be better than it currently is, this document is for you. It does not assume you have a background in economics, policy, or finance. The technical analysis exists; you do not have to read it to understand what is being proposed. What you should take from this document is that the changes described here are possible, that they have been done in other places, and that the math behind them has been worked out carefully enough to deserve serious attention.

For Policy Professionals

If you work in a policy institution, an academic department, a congressional office, or a research organization, this document is your invitation to engage critically with the underlying analysis. The white papers behind it are available on request. The specific limitations and open questions are documented. The author is not credentialed and does not claim to have done institution-grade analysis. The argument is that the structure deserves the institutional analysis that an individual cannot perform alone.

For Elected Officials

If you hold elected office or work for someone who does, this platform is offered as a starting point for the kinds of conversations that have been absent from American political discourse for too long. The proposals here are not finished policy. They are technically defensible structures around which serious legislative work could begin. The author is available to discuss any element of the proposal, to provide the underlying models, and to engage with critique. This document and its supporting analysis are not protected intellectual property; they are offered as a contribution to the work that needs to be done.

For Other Citizens Doing This Work

If you are doing parallel work — thinking through how American political and economic structures could be reorganized to produce shared prosperity — this document is your invitation to compare notes. The architecture here is not the only possible architecture. Other approaches may be better. The work of making the country better is not a competition; it is a collaboration that ought to involve far more citizens than it currently does.

“The technical work is done. What remains is the human work of moving the proposals into the institutions and conversations where they can be debated, refined, and eventually enacted. That work cannot be done by one person.”

On Reading This as a Skeptical Citizen

If you are skeptical of large-scale policy proposals, of federal capacity to deliver complex programs, of long-horizon projections, or of analytical frameworks developed outside credentialed academic and policy institutions, your skepticism is appropriate and the platform is improved by it. The platform is most compelling for citizens who value universal access to healthcare and childcare, who trust federal stewardship of public-purpose infrastructure given appropriate transparency and oversight, who can engage with multi-decade Sovereign Fund growth assumptions on their substantive merits, and who are open to wage-floor mechanisms that complement rather than replace market wage-setting. It is less compelling for citizens whose first commitments include strict fiscal restraint, market-only mechanisms for service delivery, or skepticism of any federal program expansion. Neither orientation is wrong; the platform represents one coherent architecture among multiple possible architectures.

The honest claim is not that this platform is the right answer but that it is a sufficiently developed answer to deserve serious evaluation rather than partisan dismissal. A reader who concludes after careful evaluation that the platform is not the right answer for their values has engaged with it at the right level. A reader who endorses every detail without critical engagement has engaged with it at too low a level. The platform's value to public discourse is in being a concrete architecture that can be criticized, refined, or rejected on substantive grounds, not in being a consensus document everyone can endorse.

Closing

The country is at a moment when the structures we built in the twentieth century are visibly failing to produce the outcomes we want in the twenty-first. The conventional reform proposals from both major political coalitions have been on the table for decades and have not been enacted. Something different is required.

What is offered in this document is not new in its components. Pooled retirement funding has worked in Australia for thirty years. Sovereign investment funds have worked in Norway for thirty-five years. Empirical wage policy has worked in Australia and Germany. Public funding of education has worked in most developed countries for most of the post-war period. The architecture is not invented. It is assembled.

What may be new is the specific way these elements are assembled, and the specific argument that they reinforce each other. The retirement fund makes the education fund possible. The education fund produces the workers who fund the retirement system. The wage floors ensure those workers are paid enough that the system can sustain itself. The pillars are not three separate proposals. They are one proposal expressed in three places.

The proposition is that an American economy organized around pooled contribution, empirical anchoring, and transparent governance would produce shared prosperity at a scale the current structure cannot achieve. The math says this is possible. The international comparisons say this has been done. The political question — whether Americans will choose this architecture — is the open question. This document is the case for choosing it.

“When I do well, we all do well. The principle is what makes a community a community. The architecture is what turns the principle into a system. The country has not had that system. The country could.”

Comments, critique, collaboration, and challenge are welcomed from any source. The technical white papers and supporting analytical models are available on request. The author will respond to substantive engagement and revise this document as warranted by the conversations it produces.

Jason Robertson

Ohio, 2026

(contact information available on request) · (website: see platform package README for current URL)

Sources and Data Foundations

The numerical claims in this Manifesto are drawn from public US government data sources and peer-reviewed economic research. Detailed citations are not embedded inline to keep the Manifesto readable as a vision document, but the underlying sources are documented in the technical white papers and mathematical model README sheets in folders 03 and 04. The primary data foundations are listed below by category.

Retirement architecture (Pillar One). Social Security Administration Trustees Reports for current OASI beneficiary counts, average benefits, trust fund balances, and demographic projections. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index for wage growth assumptions. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts for total US covered payroll. Norway Government Pension Fund Global annual reports for Sovereign Fund operational benchmarks. Australian Treasury and Singapore Ministry of Manpower data for international comparable retirement systems. Foundational document: Community Contribution Plan whitepaper, Combined Reform Model.

Wage architecture (Pillar Two). Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) May 2024 release for occupation-by-occupation wage distribution data covering 81 occupations across 22 BLS major groups. Empirical minimum wage research from Card, Krueger, Dube, Cengiz, Reich, Neumark, and Wascher informs disemployment expectations. Foundational document: Wage Floor Concept Analysis, wage floor Empirical Analysis.

Education architecture (Pillar Three). Department of Education and National Center for Education Statistics for current US higher education cost and enrollment data. Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income for charitable contribution and educational expense tax preference data. Foundational document: Education Fund + Cost-Based Pricing Model.

Universal Healthcare Access (Pillar Four). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Health Expenditure Accounts for total US healthcare spending and funding source breakdown. Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey for premium and contribution data. OECD Health Statistics for international per-capita comparison (Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Canada). German GKV (statutory health insurance) coverage scope from German Federal Ministry of Health public documentation. Foundational document: Universal Healthcare Model, Healthcare Transition Detailed Plan.

Universal Childcare (Pillar Five). US Census Bureau Survey of Income and Program Participation for childcare cost and access data. Quebec Ministère de la Famille program evaluation reports for the Quebec model effects. Federal Reserve and Census labor force surveys for parental workforce participation rates. Foundational document: Universal Childcare Model.

Universal Mental Health Access (Pillar Six). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health for mental health treatment needs and access gaps. American Psychological Association workforce reports for mental health workforce capacity. Foundational document: Universal Mental Health Access Substantiation, Universal Mental Health Model.

Civic Infrastructure (Pillar Seven). Federal Communications Commission Broadband Data Collection for broadband access. Department of Energy and EIA for energy grid modernization cost data. American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card for physical Civic Infrastructure backlog estimates. Foundational documents: Civic Infrastructure Architectural Framing and component models in folder 04.

Federal fiscal impact analysis. Congressional Budget Office baseline projections for federal revenue and outlay assumptions. Office of Management and Budget historical tables. Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income for income tax distributional analysis. Foundational document: Federal Fiscal Impact Analysis, Federal Program Integration Plan.

Honest acknowledgment. The platform's data sources are public and verifiable. The interpretation, modeling assumptions, and policy design choices made on top of those sources are the authors' own (Jason Robertson, with analytical support from Claude). The Provenance document describes the collaboration in detail. Where peer-reviewed economic research is cited (minimum wage, motherhood penalty, healthcare cost containment, Sovereign Fund returns), the platform draws on the empirical literature without claiming novel contribution to it.