Now this is just a harmless exercise. I am a thoroughgoing believer in democracy. As has been said (endlessly), it’s the worst form of government, except for all the others, but…admit it. I bet you have thought at times how much better the country would be if you were, even for a short time, the omnipotent monarch. Not some so-called king or queen like the ones in Britain or Spain. The real thing, attempting to show wisdom while ruling over a country. What would I do? Glad you asked. Here are a few things I would enact and change.
In government, I would maintain most of the current structures. Congress would continue as a deliberative body. Voting law would be uniform in all 50 states, though. Registration would be in person with some proof of age and residence, and there would be a national registry of voters–any move by a voter to a different place (locality or state) would be a mere change of address. Uniform regulations in all jurisdictions would be brought into being. Why should voting in Vermont carry different qualifications than voting in Mississippi? A national registry would also eliminate concerns of registry in multiple states and most any other fraud concerns.
There would be term limits. Why should some 80-year old dementia sufferer just keep holding a seat in Congress? And please don’t tell me that because Congressman X “helped my uncle get his social security,” Congressman X is deserving of 20 terms. All those problems are farmed out to some staffer, anyway. So, my thought would be that no person could be elected to more than 10 terms, or 20 years. And each of them would be entitled to an “ombudsman” who would deal with constituent complaints. And maybe one other staffer for legislative affairs. Other employees? OK, as long as you pay them.
Similarly, Senators would get a maximum of three terms: 18 years. Just because. And under the same staffing limits as Congressmen. And donations to a political candidate would be severely restricted, replaced by air time on local TV and radio, which would be a condition of stations’ licensure.
I would have line-item veto authority over all budget matters. No more would one state, by virtue of a long-term representative in Congress, get preferential treatment in matters of large federal expenditures, such as military bases or call centers. Government expenditures are all “pork” according to some, except when that “pork” goes to their own districts, when it becomes “long overdue economic stimuli.” I can’t give you a set formula that would govern my actions here. You’ll just have to trust me.
Health care: big problem, but not insoluble. I would set a timetable for long-term overhaul–say, 10 years. And I would listen to the concerns of all who are involved. Congress, of course, must represent the will of the people. Pharmaceutical companies, the American Medical Association, and the insurance industry, too. I would start with the premise that we all need to recognize that there is truly no such thing as a free lunch–someone, in the end, pays the freight for everything. And most people just nod at that notion and accept that the costs are out of line, and that it is all too big for us to solve.
Here’s the thing: it’s not really that way. I’d start with some assumptions that are not widely considered. “The cost of medical care” includes much that is not salaries or bandages or saline solution, etc. A primary care physician may pay thousands of dollars in malpractice insurance, for example. Why? Just think about that robocall you got today advising you that if you or a loved one has suffered from side effects from XYZ drug, you may be entitled (emphasis mine) to compensation, etc., etc. Drug companies spend millions to develop chemicals that will have this or that effect on humans. Then, once the drugs are approved for human use, the companies spend millions more to advertise them! The costs of all this development and branding, of course, are paid by the consumer…well…in reality, by his insurance, assuming he has insurance.
The insurance industry is, like all industries, out to make a buck. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but, unlike some guy who works in a hardware store or a woman who runs a beauty salon, an insurance company, if it has to pay out a multi-million dollar claim, can pass on the cost of that payment to its consumers in the form of higher rates. And they all get hit with this sort of catastrophic cost at times, and all pass on the costs. Who pays the increased costs? Doctors, nurses, and other people involved in the delivery of health care. How do they pay? Through cost of services that builds in money for that insurance. And who pays that? You and I do, in premiums.
Who benefits from this spiral of costs and benefits? Lawyers (Why do you think they make those robocalls?) and some winners of lawsuits. If our hypothetical hardware store employee dies from some negligence or malpractice, his wife and his kids should be entitled to have his insurance make up for the loss of his earning power. But why, if he makes $25,000 a year, should that compensation soar into the tens of millions? Two words: “pain” and “suffering.” Remember, I said ten years to settle health care? Huge rewards are at the root of high insurance rates, both for participants in health care delivery and for those who are its consumers. There has to be reform of that system, and that means that ambulance-chasing lawyers will have to settle for less, and so will survivors. There should be a common-sense solution, but the current system has huge rewards, and the lawyers will howl. We’ll get it worked out–within a few years. The long-term final result is single-payer health care, just as it is in every other first-world country in the world. It’s inevitable.
Church and state are separate in US law and practice, right? Then why does the state permit any organization that meets certain minimum standards (really minimum) to evade many of the taxes that a flower shop or bakery would pay? This has had the effect of permitting some organizations to operate tax-free or at least at a reduced tax rate. I would abolish this early on. To the idea that some would no longer be able to operate, I can only shrug. The state has no interest in fostering religion, or it must impartially foster all religions. I opt for none. Franklin Graham, Joel Osteen, Jerry Falwell, Jr., will not starve. They are in reality TV personalities or corporate pitchmen anyway.
Infrastructure? We really need it. Trillions of dollars’ worth. Decaying roads, bridges, water lines, and more must be rebuilt, and this is not open to debate. Financing it all is a major problem, but not one that can’t be solved. Institute, if need be, a 50-state lottery. Or some combination of that and a spree of closing tax loopholes. Or a temporary raise in gas taxes–a 25-cent levy on each gallon of gas sold in the US would raise billions, and it could be sunsetted, made to expire after 5 or 10 years. Remember, in the runup to the election of 2008, we were paying nearly $4.00 a gallon, nationwide. Now with gasoline at about $2.50, we’re driving more but enjoying it less. Fix those roads! And every road that gets repaved, every bridge that gets rebuilt, all create jobs that can’t be outsourced to China or Bangladesh.
There is a lot more that could be done, even without a king. Will it? I don’t know. Will we sink into the crowd of second-tier nations? We could; some would say we already have. Let’s dream bigger.