Middling System

Secure $175 Billion for Border Security and Defense

This proposal seeks a historic investment to fully secure the border through a mandatory supplement to discretionary spending totaling $175 billion over a multi-year authorization period. The funding would provide the Department of Homeland Security with resources needed to harden physical defenses, expand surveillance technology, and manage immigration flows at both the southern and northern borders. The budget request allocates approximately $87 billion for physical infrastructure including barrier construction, port-of-entry modernization, and access road improvements along the 1,954-mile U.S.-Mexico border. An additional $42 billion would fund the hiring of 20,000 new Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers over five years, along with retention bonuses to address the agency's current 15 percent vacancy rate. The technology component, budgeted at $28 billion, includes autonomous surveillance towers, ground sensors, and an integrated data platform to coordinate responses across federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The remaining $18 billion would support immigration court expansion, adding 600 new immigration judges to reduce a case backlog that currently exceeds three million pending cases. Supporters argue the investment is necessary to restore operational control of the border and reduce the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs into the country. Critics, including fiscal hawks in both parties, question whether the spending level is sustainable given existing federal deficits and note that previous border funding increases have not proportionally reduced unauthorized crossings. Immigration advocacy organizations contend that the proposal lacks adequate funding for asylum processing and legal representation, which they argue are essential to an effective and humane immigration system. The Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored the full package but preliminary estimates suggest it would add between $140 billion and $160 billion to the deficit over ten years after accounting for projected revenue from increased trade processing fees.

February 12, 2026

Pass the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025

This federal bill makes daylight saving time the new permanent standard time across the United States. States with existing exemptions, such as Arizona and Hawaii, may choose their own standard time offset, but the central goal is to eliminate the disruptive semi-annual clock change that affects over 300 million Americans. The legislation builds on the bipartisan Sunshine Protection Act that passed the Senate unanimously in March 2022 but stalled in the House. Proponents argue that the twice-yearly time switch leads to measurable increases in car accidents, workplace injuries, and heart attacks in the days following each transition. Studies from the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine have documented a 6% spike in fatal traffic collisions in the week after the spring-forward change. The bill would lock clocks forward permanently, giving most of the country an extra hour of evening daylight year-round. Supporters in the tourism, recreation, and retail industries estimate the extended evening light could generate billions in additional consumer spending annually, as people tend to shop and dine out more when it is still light after work. Critics, including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, counter that permanent standard time would be healthier because it better aligns with the body's circadian rhythm, and that dark winter mornings under permanent DST could pose safety risks for children walking to school. The bill includes a 12-month implementation runway so that airlines, broadcasters, and software systems have time to adjust scheduling infrastructure. Rep. Buchanan, who represents Florida's Gulf Coast, notes that his state already passed a resolution in favor of year-round DST and is simply waiting for federal authorization to act.

February 12, 2026

Tie Executive Pay to Employee Pay for Tax Purposes

This local initiative proposes changes to business taxes based on a comparison of a top executive's pay to the median employee's pay. The goal is to encourage more equitable wealth distribution within large corporations headquartered or operating in San Francisco. Under the proposal, companies where the CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio exceeds 100:1 would face a surcharge on their annual gross receipts tax. The surcharge would scale in tiers, with ratios above 200:1 triggering a higher rate and ratios above 600:1 triggering the maximum rate. San Francisco previously enacted a similar CEO pay ratio tax in 2020 under Proposition L, which passed with roughly 65 percent of the vote. Proponents argue that the existing measure's rates are too modest to meaningfully influence corporate compensation decisions and that an updated structure would generate an estimated $60 to $140 million in additional annual revenue. That revenue would be directed to workforce development programs, affordable housing, and public transit improvements within the city. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and several tech industry groups oppose the measure, contending that it would drive employers to relocate operations outside city limits. Opponents also argue that pay ratio calculations can be misleading for companies with large part-time or contract workforces, and that the tax penalizes firms regardless of whether their median wages are already above market rate. The initiative includes an exemption for businesses with fewer than 100 employees and nonprofit organizations. If approved, the measure would take effect for the 2026 tax year, with the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector responsible for enforcement and annual reporting on compliance rates. Similar pay ratio disclosure requirements exist at the federal level under the Dodd-Frank Act, though no federal tax consequences are currently attached to the ratios.

February 12, 2026

Create SNAP friendly Farmers Markets in Indiantown

Residents of Indiantown need affordable options for fresh produce in a community that has been identified as a food desert by the USDA Economic Research Service. This proposal advocates for the Martin County Board of Commissioners to establish a farmers market that accepts SNAP benefits through Electronic Benefit Transfer terminals to ensure low-income families have access to healthy food. Indiantown, a rural village of approximately 7,000 residents in western Martin County, currently has no full-service grocery store within its boundaries, forcing residents to travel 15 to 20 miles to the nearest supermarket in Stuart or Palm City. The American Heart Association, which is sponsoring the proposal, estimates that over 40 percent of Indiantown households participate in SNAP and would benefit directly from a market that accepts benefits. The proposed market would operate weekly on Saturday mornings at the Indiantown Civic Center, with space for 20 to 30 vendor stalls featuring locally grown fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural products from the surrounding farming region. A key component of the proposal is a double-value incentive program, similar to Florida's Fresh Access Bucks, where SNAP dollars spent at the market would be matched dollar-for-dollar up to $20 per visit to increase purchasing power. The Martin County Health Department has endorsed the concept, citing data showing that Indiantown residents have higher rates of diet-related conditions including diabetes and hypertension compared to the county average. Startup costs are estimated at $85,000 for EBT equipment, vendor infrastructure, signage, and first-year marketing, with the American Heart Association committing to cover $50,000 through its Voices for Healthy Kids initiative. The proposal asks the county to provide the remaining funding and waive facility rental fees for the first two years to allow the market to become self-sustaining. Local growers in the Treasure Coast region have expressed interest in participating, as the market would provide a new direct-to-consumer sales channel within a community that is predominantly agricultural workers and their families.

February 12, 2026

Safeguard Community Character and Affordable Housing

This ordinance seeks to implement new zoning protections that prioritize affordable housing while maintaining the historical and aesthetic character of local neighborhoods against aggressive high-density development on the San Francisco Peninsula. Proponent Richard Kurylo has circulated the proposal among residents of unincorporated San Mateo County communities where recent state housing mandates have accelerated approvals for multi-story apartment and condominium projects. The ordinance would establish a Community Character Overlay Zone that limits new residential buildings to three stories and 35 feet in height within a half-mile radius of designated historic districts and neighborhood commercial corridors. Within this overlay, developers seeking to build above the height limit would be required to set aside 25 percent of units as affordable to households earning 80 percent or less of the area median income, which is currently approximately $149,600 for a family of four in San Mateo County. The proposal also includes design review standards requiring new buildings to use materials, setbacks, and rooflines compatible with adjacent structures built before 1970. Supporters, including several neighborhood associations and the local historical society, argue that the overlay would give communities a meaningful voice in how growth occurs rather than allowing state-mandated density bonuses to override local preferences. Housing advocacy organizations such as YIMBY Action and the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California oppose the measure, contending that it would effectively block the construction of housing units needed to meet the county's Regional Housing Needs Allocation of over 12,000 units by 2031. Legal analysts have raised questions about whether the ordinance could withstand challenge under the Housing Accountability Act, which restricts local governments from denying compliant housing projects. Kurylo's campaign argues that the ordinance does not ban development but rather channels it into forms that residents can support, which would ultimately speed approvals by reducing community opposition. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors would need to adopt the ordinance or place it on the ballot for voter approval.

February 12, 2026