Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2212:, 18th May 2025, Three Proposals to Heal the Nation - with the assistance of ChatGPT AI. Plus, another Proposal.
A Journal across Realities, Time, Space, Soul-States.
May 18th, 2025
Good Sunday,
May the Spirit of the Gospel and the Holy Word be Always on our Tongues, in our Hearts, Minds, and in our Hands.
Holy Virgin Mother Mary and All Saints - Pray for us!
—
Index Number 2212:
—
—
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Justice.
Here are 4 Proposals the Start Healing this Nation and perhaps the West. I used ChatGPT AI to reshape my proposals into Bill form, and summary introductions.
Feedback requested.
God Bless., Steve
PS. Changes and update 30th May 2025: change AI audio for all article.
Audio AI generated review of entire article,
“Business!? Business!? Mankind was my Business!”
“Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
―Charles Dickens,A Christmas Carol
About Civic Responsibility and Community Engagement
I present for your serious consideration a legislative proposal titled the Civic Responsibility and Community Engagement Act of 2025. This proposal seeks to amend current federal and state law by establishing a clear civic requirement: that all citizens must complete a minimum of four years of part-time volunteer community service, military service, or a combination thereof in order to vote, be employed by government, or seek elected office. This act is rooted in the conviction that the privileges of democratic participation must be directly tied to tangible acts of public commitment.
Here is an AI created overview as an audio conversation.
Volunteer placements with room, board, small stipend, specialty tools and garments are included. Other benefits, as living away from family and community to help advance each person into successful adults with virtues (like service to others and Nation) and skills needed, life-long peer networks involvement, and travel included with increased national cohesion, and universal assertion that service to others is important.
This measure arises from an enduring truth: community engagement fortifies democracy. When citizens participate in service that contributes directly to the common good—whether through volunteering in their neighborhoods or serving in the armed forces—they gain a deeper understanding of societal needs and the burdens of citizenship. These contributions are not merely symbolic. They are foundational to the development of informed, conscientious participants in both electoral and administrative functions of government.
Those who serve—either in uniform or in local civic capacities—are generally better prepared for leadership, decision-making, and ethical stewardship. Service fosters maturity, humility, and a sense of shared national purpose. In this context, the right to vote, the honor of government employment, and the pursuit of public office are not entitlements granted by birth or whim, but earned privileges secured by sacrifice and work for others. Universal Suffrage is a form of suicide for nations. Today our votes would be no more or less valuable and significant if toddlers and our dogs could vote, they are sharing the common endless belly among the base ignorant incompetence as most legal adult citizen voters - meaningless, shallow,
Therefore, the proposed legislation requires that any citizen who wishes to vote in a federal, state, or local election must have completed at least four years of verified, part-time community or military service. This service must consist of no fewer than 1000 hours per year, and may include such activities as firefighting, emergency medical response, tutoring, library assistance, environmental conservation efforts, or equivalent service through any branch of the United States Armed Forces. The legitimacy of this service shall be documented and certified by local volunteer organizations, military authorities, or a designated local committee empowered to evaluate such records.
The same standard shall apply to those seeking employment in any government agency—federal, state, or municipal. Prior to assuming any public role or receiving public salary, the individual must first have demonstrated a history of concrete civic contribution.
Exceptions may be made for those whose service has been completed via military duty or nationally recognized service programs. Similarly, any citizen who aspires to run for public office must show, at the time of candidacy registration, verified proof of completed service. This applies to all electoral positions, including those in Congress, gubernatorial offices, mayoralties, city councils, school boards, and the presidency itself.
This bill is not blind to human limitations. Individuals with severe mental disabilities, as defined under current federal and state statutes, shall be exempt from these requirements and unable to vote because of incompetency. For individuals with significant physical disabilities, committees shall be required to furnish a list of accessible, meaningful service activities, tailored to their abilities. These may include intellectual, virtual, or written contributions such as educational mentorship, prisoner correspondence, or digital knowledge expansion, and have accesses to all possible benefits and responsibilities as non-disabled.
Implementation of this act shall be overseen by local Community Service Committees, formed in each municipality or county. These bodies will consist of respected community members, including leaders from service organizations, educators, and volunteers themselves. They will define acceptable service activities, provide guidance to individuals seeking to fulfill their obligations, and ensure consistency and fairness in certification. They shall also coordinate with educational institutions to promote early civic involvement and prepare future citizens to fulfill these duties as they reach maturity.
At the national level, a Community Service Oversight Board will be established to monitor and regulate the local committees, ensuring uniform standards across jurisdictions and adjudicating disputes regarding service eligibility or fraud.
In addition to structural reform, the bill introduces supporting mechanisms to make service feasible and attractive. Volunteers who complete the four-year service requirement will be eligible for tax deductions based on the hours served. Employers who accommodate employee participation in such programs will receive tax incentives. Volunteer organizations themselves will be eligible for federal grants to improve training, expand operations, and increase outreach capacity.
To protect the integrity of this system, strict penalties will be imposed on individuals or entities who commit fraud in service certification. Knowingly falsifying records for the purpose of qualifying for voting, employment, or candidacy shall carry financial penalties, disqualification from office, and possible criminal prosecution. Employers and organizations involved in such deceit shall face loss of government contracts and additional fines.
This act shall take effect beginning January 1, 2026, and shall apply to all relevant civil functions—voting, public employment, and candidacy—thereafter. Should any provision of this act be found unconstitutional, all other provisions shall remain in force and unaffected.
For the purpose of this law, community service is understood to include any unpaid activity benefiting the public good, while military service refers to honorable duty performed within any recognized branch of the United States Armed Forces. “Government” encompasses all administrative and public service bodies at the federal, state, and local levels. Definitions of severe disability will conform to those presently recognized by federal and state law.
The fundamental aim of this legislation is not merely to mandate service but to elevate the civic character of the Republic. By requiring an earned investment in the welfare of others, we restore dignity and meaning to the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Only through such reciprocal engagement can democracy survive as something nobler than a transactional contest of interests. It must be a shared vocation, and like all vocations, it demands proof of commitment.
Civic Responsibility and Community Engagement Act
To establish a requirement for community service as a prerequisite for voting, government employment, and candidacy for government office in the United States, including military service as an alternative qualification.
A BILL
To amend federal and state voting and employment laws to require individuals to complete a minimum of 4 years of part-time volunteer community service, military service, or a combination of both in order to vote, work for government entities, or run for office, as defined by local committees, including educational committees.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Civic Responsibility and Community Engagement Act of 2025."
SECTION 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
Community engagement strengthens democracy. When individuals participate in meaningful community service or military service, they develop a better understanding of the needs of society and the responsibilities of citizenship.
Active participation in community service or military service helps prepare individuals for leadership roles. Those who contribute to their communities or serve in the military are often better equipped to make informed decisions and fulfill the duties of voting, government employment, and public office.
Voting and government roles require a sense of civic duty and commitment. The right to vote and the opportunity to work for or hold office in government should be linked to tangible contributions to society that demonstrate a genuine investment in the welfare of the community.
SECTION 3. REQUIREMENT FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE, MILITARY SERVICE, AND VOLUNTEER SERVICE.
(a) Requirement for Voting.
(1) In order to vote in any federal, state, or local election, an individual must have completed at least 4 years of part-time volunteer community service, 4 years of military service, or a combination of both, as determined by a local community service committee.
(2) This community service or military service requirement must be documented by the local volunteer organization, military branch, or certified program and verified by the local committee.
(3) The volunteer service or military service must consist of at least 1000 hours of service per year for a minimum of 4 years, or equivalent service in the military.
(4) The types of service that qualify for this requirement include, but are not limited to, volunteer fire fighting, emergency medical services, tutoring, library assistance, environmental cleanups, military service, and other community-driven activities that support public welfare.
(5) Exclusion for individuals with severe mental disabilities. Individuals with severe mental disabilities, as defined by applicable federal or state laws, shall be excluded from these earned benefits.
(6) Alternative service for individuals with severe physical disabilities. Individuals with severe physical disabilities will be provided with a list of service opportunities suitable for their capabilities by the local community service committee. These opportunities may include activities such as:
Writing letters to prisoners
Supporting web-based services, such as expanding articles and adding details to platforms like Wikipedia
Offering virtual tutoring or mentorship
Other services that can be performed remotely or in a physically accessible manner
(b) Requirement for Government Employment.
(1) Any individual seeking employment with a federal, state, or local government agency must have completed at least 4 years of part-time volunteer community service or 4 years of military service, or a combination of both, prior to being eligible for government employment.
(2) The service requirement must be documented and verified by the relevant community service committee or military branch and employer to confirm the individual’s participation.
(3) Exceptions to this requirement may be granted for individuals who have completed equivalent community service through military service or other recognized public service programs.
(c) Requirement for Candidacy for Government Office.
(1) Any individual seeking to run for elected office at the federal, state, or local level must have completed at least 4 years of part-time volunteer community service or 4 years of military service, or a combination of both, prior to submitting candidacy papers.
(2) Individuals seeking office must provide proof of completed volunteer service or military service with their candidacy registration forms, certified by the appropriate local or state committee.
(3) This requirement applies to candidates for all federal, state, and local offices, including but not limited to the Presidency, Congress, governors, mayors, and school boards.
SECTION 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMITTEES.
(a) Local Community Service Committees.
(1) Each locality (city, county, or township) shall establish a Community Service Committee tasked with defining and overseeing the types of eligible volunteer service for the purpose of this Act. The committee shall consist of local leaders, representatives from public service organizations, and citizens who volunteer in their community.
(2) The committee will also provide oversight to ensure that volunteer organizations meet the minimum standards of service, and that individuals meet the required volunteer hours.
(3) The committee shall also work with local educational bodies to promote civic engagement programs for students and young adults, helping to prepare future voters and leaders with a sense of responsibility and involvement.
(4) The committee will also create a list of accessible service opportunities for individuals with severe physical disabilities, ensuring that no individual is excluded from fulfilling their civic duties based on physical limitations.
(b) National Community Service Oversight Board.
(1) A National Community Service Oversight Board shall be established at the federal level to oversee the local committees and ensure that the volunteer service programs align with the spirit of this Act.
(2) The board will be tasked with reviewing any disputes related to volunteer service hours or eligibility, ensuring fairness and consistency in the implementation of this law.
SECTION 5. TAX INCENTIVES AND SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE.
(a) Tax Incentives for Volunteers.
(1) Individuals who complete the required 4 years of community service or military service shall be eligible for tax deductions based on the number of hours worked. This incentive will encourage broader community participation and compensate individuals for their time.
(2) Employers who allow employees to participate in volunteer service programs will also receive a tax credit to offset the cost of time lost during volunteer service hours.
(b) Support for Volunteer Organizations.
(1) Volunteer organizations that participate in the community service programs outlined in this Act shall be eligible for federal grants to expand their operations and recruit more volunteers.
(2) These funds can be used for volunteer training, equipment, and outreach to help more citizens fulfill their service requirements.
SECTION 6. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.
(a) Penalties for False Claims of Service.
(1) Any individual who knowingly provides false information about their community service for the purpose of voting, employment, or candidacy shall be subject to a fine, disqualification from public office, and may face up to 3 years in prison.
(2) Any employer or volunteer organization that falsely certifies an individual’s community service may be subject to penalties including loss of government contracts and fines.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2026, and will apply to all federal, state, and local elections, government employment opportunities, and candidacies beginning with the 2026 election cycle.
SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
SECTION 9. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions apply:
Community service refers to any unpaid voluntary activity that benefits the public or a specific community, such as tutoring, firefighting, emergency rescue services, library assistance, and other similar activities.
Military service refers to service in the armed forces of the United States, including but not limited to the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force.
Federal, state, and local governments refer to all branches and agencies of government at the national, state, and local levels, including those involved in the employment of public servants and the administration of elections.
Severe mental disabilities refers to individuals whose mental condition severely limits their ability to understand or perform necessary community service, as defined by federal or state laws.
Severe physical disabilities refers to individuals with significant physical limitations, as defined by applicable disability laws, which make traditional volunteer service difficult.
This bill promotes active participation in the community and military service, ensuring that those who engage in the democratic process, work in public service roles, or run for public office have demonstrated a genuine commitment to their communities and country.
Description of the Universal Dividend Income (UDI)
I write today to propose a long-overdue reform—a Universal Dividend Income (UDI)—not as an act of charity, but as a restitution for decades of suppressed wages, misallocated public resources, and the systematic redirection of labor’s rightful share of national productivity into the coffers of capital. The Universal Dividend Income is not a handout; it is the return of a withheld inheritance, one that was earned by generations of working Americans whose tax dollars, labor, and intellectual capital were exploited to subsidize corporate expansion, technological innovation, and national prosperity.
We are often told that there is no alternative to our present economic model, but history tells us otherwise. From the close of World War II through the late 1970s, American workers shared equitably in the gains of their labor. Productivity rose, and so did wages. A single income could support a family, buy a home, save for retirement, and fund the next generation’s education. This balance was not accidental; it was a reflection of an implicit social contract—one that has been shattered since 1979.
The year 1979 marked the beginning of a deliberate policy shift. Deregulation, tax favoritism toward capital, the destruction of unions, and the financialization of the economy all converged to produce a widening gulf between productivity and compensation. Since then, worker productivity has risen by over 80 percent, yet wages have stagnated. The average American laborer today produces nearly double what he did in 1979 but receives only a fraction more in real wages. If wages had kept pace with productivity, today’s median wage would be nearly $40 an hour rather than the current $19.33. This is not merely an academic statistic—it is the embodiment of systemic theft.
Where did that missing value go? Into executive bonuses, stock buybacks, and the speculative games of capital. At the same time, government-funded research and infrastructure—paid for by taxpayers—has been handed over to corporations at no cost. From the internet and GPS to pharmaceutical research and energy subsidies, public innovation has consistently enriched private shareholders while leaving the public with no residual claim. The Universal Dividend Income would change that. It would acknowledge that every citizen has already paid into the system—not unlike Social Security—and is entitled to a share of the returns.
The mechanics of the UDI are simple, transparent, and just. Based on current data, the monthly wage suppression per full-time worker, if corrected for productivity, is roughly $3,543. If this gap were rectified through redistribution across the adult population, every legal adult citizen in the United States could receive approximately $2,659 per month as a dividend—not a wage, not welfare, but a dividend on decades of undercompensated labor and public investment. Adding existing welfare outlays (including Social Security, housing, and food assistance), which average roughly $750 per citizen per month, the total monthly dividend would rise to approximately $3,409. For families with dependent children, a third of the adult dividend—around $1,136—would be provided per child.
UDI is not the same as the oft-cited Universal Basic Income (UBI), which can too easily be portrayed as charity or a pacifier. This is a dividend—a share of profits already earned by our collective labor and national capital. We have paid into it through generations of toil, taxation, and compliance with laws that have disproportionately benefited corporate interests. The returns on that investment are long overdue.
Under a Universal Dividend Income regime, ordinary Americans would finally regain the purchasing power and security stolen from them since the 1980s. The policy would foster not dependency, but independence. With a stable dividend, families could invest in education, launch small businesses, purchase homes, or save for the future. The so-called "investor class" would cease to be a closed elite; it would expand to include millions of ordinary people with the means to participate in the markets they helped build. Economic mobility would no longer be the exception but the rule.
Skeptics may ask whether the nation can afford such a program. The real question is how we can continue to afford the status quo—an economy that transfers wealth upward while eroding the middle class, hollowing out communities, and inciting social unrest. By returning corporate profits to levels more consistent with those of 1979—still robust, but not obscene—we can fund a stable dividend system without damaging innovation or productivity. On the contrary, history suggests that broad-based prosperity drives economic growth far more reliably than hoarded capital or speculative finance.
It is time for a trickle-up policy. It is time to recognize that the American people are not merely consumers or labor inputs, but stakeholders in a national enterprise whose rewards have been hoarded by too few for too long. The Universal Dividend Income is not a radical idea; it is the restoration of balance, justice, and dignity to the working majority.
I urge you to study this proposal with the seriousness it deserves. The data is clear, the moral argument is compelling, and the social consequences of inaction are already upon us.
Here is Google’s NotebookLM AI created and generated Audio overview;
— my addition —
I suggest a trickle-up policy, for once. Cost, corporate profits would return to the sane profits they were earning back in 1979.
Universal Dividend Income (UDI)
A reason to present the UDI is to display why and how badly Gov & Capital has treated us while depending on our tax and public resources. Had wages followed productivity each of our wages and salaries would be double while corporations would still be profiting as they were in late 1970's and earlier.
The Dividend aspect direct us all to consider it like SS pensions, all our working lives we paid into it, FICA, and so it is earned and not some freebe charity whim of Washington, our grandfathers, fathers, mothers, brothers, .., and we have been supporting corporate businesses with free R&D results, public resources, and tax-paid resources. The profits of the Trillions we spent and still spend are given-away and have been for generations of our labor.
You and family under UDI may still work and perhaps invest the extra. Consider the small business created and-or expanded, as well as new capital in stock purchases. The 'investment' Class would expand - perhaps including nearly everyone.
Instead of UBI, we get Dividends for all the tax & public resources spent over generations in R&D and given to for profit corporations. Take a look and decide if a good idea.
Monthly 'Universal Dividend Income' calculation.
—
Detailed Description of the Universal Dividend Income Formula and Results
This formulation explores how the total income generated by wage suppression since 1979, along with government policies, could be redistributed to create a Universal Dividend Income for all legal adult citizens in the United States. We will examine the wage-productivity gap, capital policies, government programs, and how redistribution could result in monthly payouts for citizens.
1. Background: Wage Suppression and the Wage-Productivity Gap Since 1979
The period since 1979 has seen a separation between wage growth and productivity. Prior to this, wages and productivity had moved in tandem, meaning as productivity (the amount of goods or services a worker can produce in an hour) increased, so too did wages. However, since 1979, wages have failed to keep up with the rising productivity of workers.
1979 to 2024:
Productivity has increased by approximately 80.9% since 1979, meaning that the average worker today produces nearly 81% more than they did in 1979.
Wages, on the other hand, have only increased by around 29.4% during this time. This discrepancy between the growth in productivity and the stagnation of wages is a direct result of capital policies such as:
Deregulation and tax cuts for corporations and high-income earners.
The decline of unions, reducing workers' bargaining power.
The rise of financialization (e.g., stock buybacks, executive compensation) that focuses more on shareholder returns rather than reinvesting in labor or increasing wages.
This wage suppression—where profits have been funneled primarily to capital (business owners, executives, shareholders) instead of being shared with labor—has contributed to the wage-productivity gap, leaving millions of workers without the benefits of their own increased productivity.
2. Calculating the Wage Gap and Redistributing Capital Profits
To estimate the potential Universal Dividend Income, we need to look at the wage gap created by the productivity-wage divergence.
Median Wage vs. Hypothetical Wage (if wages had kept pace with productivity):
Median Hourly Wage in 1979 (in nominal dollars): $7.36
Adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars: This equals approximately $22.00 to $23.00 per hour (based on the CPI).
Productivity Increase (1979 to 2024): Productivity has increased by 80.9%.
Hypothetical Median Wage (had wages kept pace with productivity): Hypothetical Median Wage = 22.00 × (1 + 0.809) = 22.00 × 1.809 = 39.80 per hour.
Actual Median Wage in 2024: Around $19.33 per hour.
Wage Difference: The difference between the hypothetical wage (if wages had kept pace with productivity) and the actual wage is: 39.80 - 19.33 = 20.47 per hour. For a full-time worker (approximately 173.2 hours per month): Monthly Wage Gap = 20.47 × 173.2 ≈ 3,543 per month.
Thus, each worker would theoretically have been earning an additional 3,543 per month had wages kept pace with productivity growth.
Redistribution of Capital Profits: The wage gap indicates that capital profits (from increased productivity) have not been fairly shared with labor. In this redistribution model, this increase would be shared among all 250 million legal adult citizens.
The wage increase per citizen per month can be calculated by: Monthly Redistribution per Adult = (250,000,000 × 3,543) / 333,000,000 ≈ 2,659 per adult per month.
Thus, 2,659 per month could be redistributed to each legal adult citizen, based on the wages they should have been earning had they been properly compensated for productivity growth.
3. Social Security, Welfare, and Other Government Payments
In addition to wage increases, the U.S. government provides various welfare programs, such as Social Security, food stamps, housing assistance, and Medicaid. These payments represent a significant source of income redistribution.
Total Annual Welfare Spending: The U.S. government spends approximately 3 trillion dollars per year on welfare programs.
Welfare Spending per Citizen: Annual Welfare Spending per Citizen = 3,000,000,000,000 / 333,000,000 ≈ 9,000 per citizen annually. Monthly Welfare Spending per Citizen = 9,000 / 12 ≈ 750 per citizen per month.
Thus, each citizen currently receives about 750 per month on average from welfare programs.
4. Combining the Two: The Universal Dividend Income
Now, let’s combine both the redistributed wage increase and the welfare payments:
Redistributed Wage Increase: 2,659 per adult per month.
Welfare and Social Security Payments: 750 per citizen per month.
Total monthly amount for each legal adult citizen would be: 2,659 + 750 = 3,409 per adult per month.
For Families with Children: Parents of dependent children would receive 1/3 of the adult amount for each child: 3,409 / 3 ≈ 1,136 per child per month.
5. Summary of Results: Universal Dividend Income
In this Universal Dividend Income model:
Adults (18+ years): Each legal adult citizen would receive around 3,409 per month.
Each Child: For each dependent child, parents would receive an additional 1,136 per month.
This model seeks to redistribute the income generated by increased productivity and the capital profits that have been hoarded since 1979, while also including welfare benefits into the equation. The result is a significant monthly payout that ensures more equitable distribution of wealth across all citizens, which could help combat rising inequality, provide a stronger safety net for families, and increase overall economic stability.
Conclusion:
The wage suppression since 1979—driven by capital policies and the decline of labor protections—has led to an economy where productivity has increased dramatically without a corresponding rise in worker wages. By redistributing the wage-productivity gap along with current welfare payments, the Universal Dividend Income model proposes a more equitable income distribution, offering 3,409 per month for each legal adult and a proportional amount for children. This would provide a substantial economic boost, particularly to low- and middle-income households, and could help restore economic stability and fairness.
Last 2 proposals are outlined in this AI created ‘conversation’;
Image of the Map of key concepts for these two proposals is at end.
Family Support and Employment Prioritization Act
I write to bring your attention to the urgent necessity of passing the Family Support and Employment Prioritization Act of 2025, a legislative proposal that aims to reverse the erosion of family stability in the United States by reestablishing the traditional family model as a national priority. For too long, economic policy has drifted from the moral and structural foundations that once made it possible for a single income to support a family. As a result, today’s families are under pressure from both cultural disintegration and financial insecurity. This Act seeks to re-anchor our economic order in the time-tested framework of the two-parent, single-income household—particularly one where the father serves as the principal provider and the mother is free, if she so chooses, to remain at home and rear the children without economic penalty.
The logic behind this approach is not novel, but rooted in common sense, historical precedent, and social science. Research has consistently shown that children raised in stable, two-parent households—especially those with a dedicated caregiver and a full-time breadwinner—perform better academically, socially, and emotionally. At the heart of such family stability is economic security. When fathers hold dignified, well-paying jobs that allow them to fully support their households, the likelihood of marital breakdown declines, and the prospects for children rise. It is no coincidence that the most stable periods in American history coincided with an economic environment where the male wage earner could, by himself, provide for wife and children.
The legislation thus proposes a realignment of labor law and tax policy to reflect this priority. Among its chief provisions is a requirement that employers with more than twenty-five full-time employees give hiring preference—where qualifications are comparable—to male applicants who are fathers or family heads. This is not a blanket preference, but a targeted effort to restore male financial responsibility where it matters most: in the family. To encourage compliance, employers who hire qualifying men will be eligible for a federal tax credit equal to ten percent of the worker’s salary for a period of three years.
This hiring initiative is matched by a mandate that the Department of Labor establish a “family-sustaining wage” benchmark—an income level sufficient to support a family of four on one full-time income. This standard will be updated annually in accordance with inflation and regional cost-of-living adjustments. Employers who fail to meet this standard for positions deemed essential to family support will be required to pay a wage premium, while those who meet or exceed the benchmark will qualify for further tax deductions. The goal is to restore the baseline expectation that honest, full-time labor can provide for an entire household.
The Act also addresses the cultural and educational foundations necessary for this shift. It calls for educational programming, especially within high school and college career counseling centers, that explains the social and personal benefits of traditional family structures. Public institutions must once again affirm—not marginalize—the enduring value of fathers as providers and mothers as caregivers. In tandem, the bill expands access to family counseling services, particularly those tailored to male heads of households and their unique responsibilities.
To further support these reforms, the Act proposes amendments to the tax code. Married couples where the husband is the primary breadwinner and the wife the primary homemaker will receive an additional deduction to reflect the economic value of domestic work. At the same time, single-parent households headed by working mothers will receive a tax-rate adjustment in recognition of their dual burdens. Additionally, the bill creates a Family Preservation Fund to offer matching grants to community programs that encourage paternal involvement and family cohesion.
A cornerstone of this proposal is its adjustment of the federal minimum wage to reflect the true needs of a single-income household. No full-time worker—especially a father—should be forced into second jobs or compelled to send a spouse into the labor market just to make ends meet. The Act sets a new minimum wage standard calibrated to this principle and provides incentives to employers who meet or exceed it, including payroll-tax reductions and preferred access to government contracts.
Enforcement will be overseen by a newly established Family Stability Office within the Department of Labor. This office will monitor employer compliance, collect annual wage and hiring data, and provide guidance and support to both businesses and workers. Employers who fail to meet the requirements may face penalties, including fines or disqualification from public contracts.
Critics will predictably raise concerns about gender discrimination or economic feasibility. Yet this Act does not deny women the right to work, nor does it inhibit their advancement. It simply affirms the right of families to choose a traditional structure without being penalized economically for doing so. Gender equality must not mean the erasure of gender roles; rather, it should mean the freedom to pursue distinct, complementary vocations within the family.
In sum, the Family Support and Employment Prioritization Act of 2025 is a decisive and necessary correction to decades of misguided policy that has undermined the very building block of a healthy society: the family. By restoring the economic dignity of fatherhood and making it once again feasible to raise a family on a single income, this legislation represents both a return to moral clarity and a path forward for national renewal. I urge your support for this Act and your commitment to rebuilding the American home.
—
To promote family stability and support the traditional family structure by prioritizing fathers as primary providers in employment, and ensuring that wages are sufficient for one-income households.
A BILL
To amend federal labor laws and establish policies that support traditional family structures by prioritizing fathers and male family heads in employment, ensuring sufficient wages for single-income households, and creating economic conditions that allow families to thrive.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Family Support and Employment Prioritization Act of 2025."
SECTION 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
Family stability is critical to the well-being of children and society. Research has shown that children in stable, two-parent households with one primary breadwinner and one caregiver parent tend to perform better academically, socially, and emotionally.
Increased economic stability can reduce divorce rates. When fathers have access to well-paying jobs, they are better able to fulfill their traditional role as financial providers, leading to greater family stability.
Economic policies in many societies have historically supported male primary providers to ensure that families could thrive on a single income, allowing mothers to focus on home management and child-rearing.
Wages must be sufficient to sustain a family on a single income. Economic conditions must allow men to adequately support their families, thereby reducing the necessity for both parents to be in the workforce.
Gender equality in employment should not undermine family structures. While opportunities for women to work must be preserved, promoting male workers as primary providers enables families to choose traditional, supportive roles for mothers while still supporting women in the workplace.
SECTION 3. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to:
Promote policies that prioritize men as the primary financial providers for families in order to ensure that families can survive on a single income.
Encourage economic conditions where fathers can provide adequate financial support, ensuring the stability of marriages and families.
Establish employment and wage policies that encourage employers to prioritize family-supporting positions for men, while continuing to support the participation of women in the workforce.
SECTION 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT.
(a) Employer Incentives to Prioritize Family-Head Men.
(1) Employers with more than 25 full-time employees must offer a preference for hiring fathers or men who head families, provided the qualifications of male candidates are comparable to those of other applicants.
(2) Employers will receive a tax credit for hiring male family providers, equal to 10% of the salary of the employee, for a period of 3 years after employment.
(b) Single-Income Family Wage Standards.
(1) The Department of Labor shall create wage standards that ensure that full-time work by a single male breadwinner can provide for a family of four without requiring dual incomes. These standards shall be updated annually based on cost-of-living factors.
(2) Employers that fail to meet the single-income family wage standard for positions deemed essential for family support will be required to pay a wage premium to compensate for the deficiency.
(3) Employers that meet or exceed the standard will be eligible for tax deductions to incentivize further investments in family-supporting roles.
(c) Promotion of Traditional Family Structures.
(1) Educational programs on the value of the traditional family model shall be promoted, particularly in high school and college career counseling programs, to emphasize the importance of supporting family structures.
(2) Family counseling services will be expanded and made available to employees and their families, with a particular emphasis on providing resources for fathers in leadership and family-provider roles.
SECTION 5. ADJUSTMENTS IN THE TAX CODE.
(a) Tax Incentives for Family Stability.
(1) Taxpayers who are heads of households, where the husband is the primary financial provider and the wife is primarily responsible for child-rearing or home management, will be eligible for additional tax deductions to support family stability.
(2) Employers who offer paid parental leave specifically for fathers, allowing them time to bond with their newborns or young children, will be eligible for a tax credit for the first 8 weeks of leave taken by male employees.
(b) Income Tax Reforms.
(1) The tax rate for single-parent households in which the mother is the primary income earner shall be adjusted to reflect the increased financial burden of having two working parents.
(2) A Family Preservation Fund will be established to allocate matching funds for community programs that support traditional family roles, focusing on fatherhood and family cohesion.
SECTION 6. WAGE STABILITY AND MINIMUM WAGE ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Increase Minimum Wage to Meet Single-Income Household Standard.
(1) The minimum wage will be adjusted to reflect the need for a father to be able to support a family of four on a single income.
(2) The new wage standard will ensure that single parents, especially fathers, do not need to rely on dual incomes to meet the needs of their families.
(b) Incentives for Employers to Meet Wage Requirements.
(1) Employers that meet the wage requirements will be eligible for additional benefits, including a reduction in payroll taxes, and access to preferential contracts with the government.
SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) Reporting Requirements.
(1) Employers shall submit annual reports to the Department of Labor to confirm compliance with the family-provider hiring preference and wage standards.
(2) The Family Stability Office shall be established within the Department of Labor to monitor the effectiveness of the bill and provide support to employers and workers to meet these standards.
(b) Penalties for Non-Compliance.
(1) Employers who fail to meet the wage standards or family-provider hiring preferences may face penalties, including a fine or loss of government contracts.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2026.
SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
This bill seeks to reorient economic policies around the traditional family structure, ensuring that fathers can support their families with a single income, while also promoting a society where both parents—fathers as primary providers and mothers as caregivers—can contribute to the wellbeing of children and the stability of the family unit.
Address the Crisis of Competence and Stability that Hyper-empower and Psychologically-Damaged Women have Caused
Subject: Proposal for Legal Reforms to Address the Crisis of Competence and Stability in Family and Professional Environments
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention an urgent issue that affects the stability, competence, and long-term success of our society, families, and professional environments. The increasing influence of feminist ideologies—particularly in family and professional relationships—has led to widespread social instability, including diminished leadership quality, unhealthy workplace environments, and negative behavioral consequences for children.
In this letter, I outline the key justifications for the proposed legal changes, addressing the negative impact of feminist-driven policies in education and workplace environments, as well as family law, particularly in child custody arrangements. I will present a detailed apologetics document explaining the psychological and behavioral differences between men and women in both family and professional contexts. Following that, I have included the specific proposal for legislative action that will correct these issues and restore a more stable, merit-based approach to leadership in both family and professional settings.
—
I. Apologetics Document for the Proposed Legal Reforms
The modern world is facing a profound crisis of competence, stability, and trust. These issues, which permeate both family and professional settings, are largely driven by the growing influence of feminist ideologies. The behavioral patterns and priorities often exhibited by mothers and fathers in marital relationships offer a valuable statistical sample of how men and women tend to behave in professional relationships, providing crucial insights into the dynamics that shape workplace stability, leadership, and overall productivity.
Father’s sole custody, as proposed in the bill, serves as an essential corrective measure. This arrangement helps to protect children from the emotional instability and self-centered motivations often displayed by mothers in the modern divorce landscape [1]. It also addresses broader societal issues, particularly in the professional sphere, where the increasing feminization of leadership roles and the resulting decline in merit-based organizational structures have undermined efficiency and productivity [4].
Fathers' and Mothers' Behavior Patterns in Marriage and Professional Relationships
Fathers, particularly those who make sacrifices for the sake of their marriages and children’s futures, consistently demonstrate higher levels of commitment, discipline, and long-term thinking. They tend to prioritize the needs of others over their own immediate desires, consistently working to provide stability and a better future for their families [2]. This willingness to sacrifice—whether in the context of family, career, or other responsibilities—is directly transferrable to professional relationships, where commitment, responsibility, and a focus on long-term goals are necessary for success.
In contrast, many mothers, particularly in the modern context of marriage and divorce, often show reluctance to make similar sacrifices. Divorce statistics overwhelmingly show that women initiate the majority of divorces, typically for self-centered reasons rather than for substantial marital failures like abuse or neglect [3]. This self-interest often reflects a broader societal trend in which women prioritize personal satisfaction and emotional validation over the stability and well-being of the family, a pattern that also emerges in professional settings.
These behavioral tendencies—fathers' sacrifices versus mothers' focus on emotional validation and personal needs—are reflected in professional environments. Just as fathers display competence, sacrifice, and stability, their approach to leadership and collaboration within the workplace tends to foster stronger, more reliable organizations. Conversely, professional environments dominated by individuals who exhibit traits more akin to those displayed by women in modern family dynamics—such as emotional manipulation, ideological prioritization, and resistance to necessary hierarchies—lead to toxic, unstable workplaces where productivity is compromised.
The Psychological and Behavioral Impact of Fathers in Professional Relationships
The Stability Fathers Bring to Professional Environments
Fathers, particularly those who invest in their children’s futures through sacrifice and commitment, also carry these values into their professional relationships. Men in leadership positions, shaped by their roles as fathers, tend to lead with a focus on competence, reliability, and long-term stability. They are more likely to create environments based on merit and responsibility, rather than on emotional validation or ideological purity [10].
Furthermore, children raised by fathers tend to show better academic and professional outcomes. They are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, substance abuse, or emotional disorders. The stability and discipline that fathers instill in their children carry over into their professional lives, where these same individuals become dependable, reliable, and effective leaders or employees [6].
The Contrast with Mothers' Impact on Professional Settings
In contrast, the behavior of mothers—who often prioritize emotional satisfaction and personal desires—tends to foster environments where conflict is allowed to simmer beneath the surface, rather than being addressed head-on. This resistance to compromise and a focus on emotional validation rather than responsibility and commitment can lead to toxic workplace dynamics.
Just as many mothers are more likely to initiate divorce proceedings for reasons of personal comfort rather than for significant issues like abuse, the same tendencies manifest in professional relationships. Women in leadership roles influenced by feminist ideologies may prioritize ideological conformity over merit-based promotion, creating an environment where competence is undermined by personal or political agendas [5].
Fathers' Leadership and the Return to Competence-Based Professional Environments
Fathers, with their focus on responsibility and long-term success, are more likely to foster workplaces that prioritize competence over personal or ideological factors. They bring stability, emotional resilience, and the ability to focus on long-term goals, qualities that are often overshadowed in environments where feminist ideologies dominate.
For example, workplaces that embrace merit-based leadership—where men are hired and promoted based on skill and sacrifice—tend to exhibit higher productivity, lower turnover, and greater organizational stability. These workplaces mirror the stability and focus that fathers bring to their children's lives, ensuring that both professional and personal environments thrive [9].
II. Legislative Proposal for Reforms
Proposal to Correct the Crisis in Family, Education, and Professional Environments
A. Purpose of Proposed Legal Reforms:
This bill seeks to address the systemic issues caused by the increasing influence of feminist policies in family law, educational leadership, and professional environments. Specifically, it proposes reforms that will:
Ensure that fathers are given primary custody of children in divorce cases, promoting stability and better long-term outcomes for children [1].
Restore merit-based leadership structures in education and workplaces, removing policies that prioritize gender-based considerations over competence [9].
Mandate reasonable dress codes in schools and workplaces to reduce sexualization and create healthier, more focused environments [11].
Increase the male representation in teaching and administrative roles to a more balanced ratio, mirroring the standards of the 1950s when educational performance and discipline were higher [9].
B. Major Benefits of the Proposed Reforms:
Improved Educational Outcomes: By restoring a balance of male and female leadership in education, we will foster more stable, disciplined, and productive learning environments, benefiting both male and female students [4].
Greater Workplace Stability: Merit-based promotion and leadership, free from gender-based ideologies, will lead to more productive and efficient organizations [7].
Better Family Dynamics: Ensuring fathers are given primary custody will lead to more stable family environments, better emotional and academic outcomes for children, and healthier professional relationships as children grow into adulthood [6].
Restoration of Competence-Based Structures: With an emphasis on competence and stability, businesses and educational institutions will see higher productivity, better work-life balance, and more capable leadership, benefiting society as a whole [9].
I believe these reforms will lead to a more competent, stable, and prosperous society. I urge you to consider the proposed changes, as they align with our shared goal of improving the well-being of our citizens and the integrity of our institutions.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to discuss these important changes further.
