We’ve come to accept federal paralysis as an expected byproduct of democracy.
America is paralyzed because we keep trying to solve 50-state problems at the federal level, even when no national consensus exists.
Some things must be federal. You can’t have 50 different militaries. You need one currency, one Supreme Court, one system of national defense. Interstate commerce, civil rights, constitutional protections—these require unity and federal enforcement.
California isn’t trying to become its own country. We’ll keep arguing for federal solutions where only federal solutions work. We’ll keep fighting for federal action on climate, infrastructure, civil rights—the things that demand national coordination.
But health care? Retirement security? These social programs that tear the nation apart at the federal level don’t have to be federal fights.
If 65% of Californians support guaranteed universal coverage while 65% of Texans oppose it, there’s a simple answer: move these programs to a place in the government hierarchy where they’re actually wanted. Let California do it in California, and let Texas do what Texas wants.
That’s not division. That’s federalism working exactly as designed—solving problems at the level where solutions are possible.
The Supermajority Principle
If 65% or so of California voters support universal health care and stronger retirement security and are willing to pay for it through actual contributions, that’s not a bare majority—that’s consensus. That’s a mandate.
The reality is simple: countries with comprehensive social safety nets have higher taxes. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands—they all tax more than the U.S. and their citizens consistently support those systems because they get real security in return. This isn’t a secret or a trick. It’s a trade-off California voters would need to make.
You can’t wish social programs into existence—they have to be paid for. Californians need to decide: either we fund the security we say we want, or we stop asking Washington to do it for us. The tooth fairy isn’t paying for universal health care. Put up or shut up.
And that’s what makes policy stick. Anything that barely wins at 50% only lasts until the next administration takes control. It becomes a political football, repealed and reinstated with every election. But programs built on supermajority support become permanent—they’re too popular to touch, too embedded to dismantle.
Everyone in the country wants universal coverage. But they won’t create a tax revenue system that can support it. California will. We have voters willing to fund what they say they want.
So we should act on it. Not wait for Montana and Alabama to agree. Not beg Washington for permission. Just build what Californians want, funded by Californians, controlled by Californians.
The Vision
So here’s the radical idea: we stop waiting and build our own.
Not instead of federal programs. Alongside them. A parallel system of health care and retirement security that belongs to California, funded by Californians, controlled by Californians. Two safety nets instead of one. Double protection. Real security.
Would a good federal system be better? Yes. Universal programs work best at the largest possible scale. But that requires consensus, compromise, and competent governance at the national level—none of which exist and none of which are coming until pigs fly.
So we work with reality: federal solutions aren’t happening, and waiting means another generation without real security. California acts now. We have the supermajority, the resources, and the authority.
And we don’t need anyone’s permission to do it.
What California Will Build
Every Californian contributes roughly 7-8% of earnings to state social security and health care. In return, everyone gets:
Comprehensive health coverage on top of Medicare and Medi-Cal, filling every gap, covering everyone
Real retirement security supplementing Social Security with individually-owned accounts
Here’s the critical part: California doesn’t run any of this. Private companies do.
Healthcare gets 2-3% of payroll. That money flows to private insurance companies who actually administer coverage. California just sets the minimum benefit standards and collects contributions. You choose your insurer from a certified list—Blue Shield, Kaiser, Anthem, whatever.
Benefits phase in based on contributions. Move to California tomorrow? You start contributing immediately, but full coverage builds over time based on your contribution history. This isn’t welfare, it’s insurance you earn through participation.
This structure isn’t just good policy—it’s the only legal option. The federal government has one key advantage: you’re a citizen of the United States. There’s no such thing as California citizenship. Because people can freely move across state borders with their US citizenship, we can’t create a system that gives anyone benefits immediately just by establishing residency. We can’t use citizenship or residency duration as criteria the way the federal government can.
But we can require contribution history, just like Social Security does, just like unemployment insurance does. Work here, contribute here, get covered here proportional to what you’ve put in. That’s the model. It prevents gaming the system—driving across the border for benefits—while staying within constitutional bounds.
Retirement gets 5% of payroll. Your contributions go into individual accounts managed by certified private investment firms. Most of it? Simple index funds—total market, S&P 500. The same funds your 401(k) would hold. Your money, your account, professionally managed, portable anywhere.
Want a defined benefit plan instead? Some people prefer the certainty of a traditional pension over investment accounts. Fine—let AAA rated insurance companies offer that option too. They’ll figure out the actuarial math, manage the risk, and guarantee monthly payments at retirement. You choose: defined contribution (own your account, it grows with the market) or defined benefit (guaranteed monthly income). Both options available through competing private providers.
Critical safeguard: These are literally private accounts in your name. For retirement, it’s your account at Vanguard or Fidelity or whoever you choose. Your name, your property, your money growing in index funds. The state just mandates you have one and contribute to it, with some management rules to ensure diversification. For health insurance, it’s your policy with Kaiser or Blue Shield or whoever you pick. Your coverage, your choice of provider.
Contributions flow directly from payroll to your chosen private firm. Not through Sacramento. Not into the general fund. Not anywhere near the legislature’s greedy hands. The state collects and routes the money, but never holds it. This isn’t a government fund that can be raided for other purposes—it’s your private property, managed by firms you select, protected from political interference.
The state’s only job: collect contributions, certify managers, ensure diversification rules are followed, audit compliance.
Social Security and Medicare continue on top of this. Employers can opt in with additional contributions or keep their own plans. But every worker is protected either way.
The system is designed to be dynamic. As federal programs expand or contract, California contribution rates adjust accordingly. Federal Social Security benefits get cut? California retirement contributions increase to compensate. Medicare coverage shrinks? California health contributions rise to fill the gap. This isn’t duplication—it’s substitution with local control. The total burden stays roughly constant; you’re just paying Sacramento instead of Washington and getting what Californians actually voted for.
A note on specifics: The numbers in this proposal—7-8% contributions, the split between health and retirement—are illustrative. They’re proof of concept, not policy prescription. The real details need to be worked out by our state government, with proper actuarial analysis, public input, and legislative debate.
Yes, there are legal challenges—federal laws like ERISA that govern employer benefit plans will need to be navigated. But these challenges aren’t insurmountable. States have successfully implemented mandatory insurance systems before, and where federal law creates barriers, political will creates solutions. If 65% of Californians demand this, lawyers will find the path forward.
The Choice
We can keep waiting for national consensus that will never come. Keep hoping the next election changes everything.
Or we can govern ourselves.