Net cost to the large states

There is a median state where the costs net to zero, something like 6 million.

But California is due t produce some 15% of the swap costs. Texas like 10% and so on. They will be pissed.

We don't care, they got failed state and mass shootings, that first ten senatorial votes are lost. We should pick up about 20 votes working Vermont, Wyoming and going up.  Split the difference. Medium states will marginally gain but see the enormous gains in efficiency. The idea that much of the default can be recouped by stronger senatorial management is a nice pile of liquidity.

The senate simply backed into a corner, they have to do a good job. This proposal wins, I have been reading between the lines lately of these small state senators. This is a direct constitutional path to their problem, almost mandated.

On a marginal cost I have 20 against and 30 for. But some of the 20 will see spill off and tip, Missouri, Tennessee,  Washington. maybe Michigan. Shut the senate until the deal is made each period. Then go budgeting for the programs.

For California it is discipline from above. For example, a senator who will get off his ass and talk to a forest expert without bias. California cannot do that. Idaho might take some do-re-mi and fund a real forest education system, not the fake stuff in California. Then the senators have real pros to talk to on an ongoing basis. Interstate water management, commerce.  pay the senators to do their job.