A Modest Proposal for the Republican Party
It has recently come to my attention that the Republican Party is trying to pass a new law on health care in our nation. I have noted that so far, this effort is going quite poorly, all things considered. This is unfortunate, since the GOP has the correct diagnosis of the problem. Under the current system, known to most as “Obamacare,” altogether too many poor individuals are given health coverage. This must not stand! No law abiding, tax paying citizen ought to go through the indignity of lifting up and carrying the meekest among us. And obviously, this is true for all things, including having access to housing, food and basic, God given rights, such as voting id’s.
In fact, as I watch the presidency of Donald Trump unfold, I am becoming increasingly concerned that the Republican Party is incapable of carrying its agenda through to its logical conclusion. So, in the interest of using my own small influence in whatever way I can, I hereby make these modest proposals to the ruling party of the United States.
Make Illness Illegal
The most important effort any society can make is the eradication of sickness and disease. Men and women, in their preferable state, are healthy, functioning, truly productive investments to society. They should feel up to the job of living in the 21st Century, and they should preferably have no complaints. Illness counts as a complaint. It is important, then, to ensure that such absurdities as brain tumors, childhood leukemia, and prostate cancer are made illegal. If healthiness is the preferred state of being, than unhealthiness is definitionally bad, and things which are bad are outlawed.
But how would this be done, one may ask? Surely getting rid of physiological problems using legal methods instead of medical ones is utterly ineffective? Not at all. In fact, our nation loses billions of dollars annually pursuing medical treatments to American’s health care. Health insurance costs are rising, so clearly, this problem is not going away anytime soon. It is clear to me that, in order to create a truly healthy society while spending half the cost, illness should be outlawed and that ban must be effectively enforced.
This will be done in three ways; Firstly through what I call benign neglect. This method of enforcement will be used against those with illnesses that are not contagious in any way, such as the aforementioned cases of leukemia and prostate cancer. Since these individuals pose no danger to other individuals through their illness, they can safely be ignored until they finally go away. No money need be spent on these bad investments.
The second method of enforcement, unfortunately, will require at least some amount of spending, as it is far more involved than the first. The second method entails dealing with those individuals whose illness is potentially contagious to other individuals. When someone is found with a potentially contagious illness, they must be relocated immediately to a quarantine camp. In such places, unhealthy humans will exist, living on meager rations and doing whatever menial chores their conditions might allow, until they either get better or expire. At the time of this writing, I have no particular suggestions for where these quarantine camps should be built, except that they should preferably predominate in states that always vote for the Democrat in Presidential elections.
The third and final method has to do with those born with pre-existing conditions. Examples include those with hearing impairments or who are deaf, those with vision problems or who are blind, anyone lacking a limb, or other useful body part such as an eye, and generally all those whose have physical deformities.These individuals, if left unattended, will require a lifetime of treatment and care, and are therefor unnecessarily expensive. Under the law I am proposing, they would be executed at birth, or whenever it is their ailment is first discovered.
Now, many on the Left will decry this proposal as obscene. There will even be a number of so called “conservatives,” like Michael Gerson or Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post, and David Brooks of The New York Times, who will agree with these criticisms. But they have all forgotten one fundamental truth of civilized society; human beings are investments, first and foremost. The goal of our American society is to make money, not to spend it. It is my opinion that the American Health Care Act, and its counterpart in the Senate, are steps in the right direction, as both would cut back dramatically on the spending under the current law. But if a bill is ultimately passed into law, our efforts should not end. We can always do better, and save more money. My first proposal should be our ultimate goal.
Make Housing Available for All (Who can afford it)
In addition to eradicating illness from our society, we should also put an end to homelessness. How can an individual be productive if she is homeless? The answer lies in ensuring that no individual lacks access to fabric. This useful material is good not only for clothing, but also for shelter, if used properly. Fabric is also relatively inexpensive, so most people can afford at least a square inch. Additionally, local and state governments can arrange to make fabric more available to their people, as well as wooden poles and other items with which to make tents.
All of this can easily be arranged to combat the problem of homelessness. But obviously most people have access to housing already. Therein lies a second problem. What does a truly efficient society do about public housing? And even a further issue arises. If individuals who currently qualify as “middle-class” lose the ability to make payments on their own homes, what is to be done?
Here is my proposal to address these problems. Given that the majority of those living in public housing are already quite poor, it seems to me superfluous to increase any amount of spending on their means of shelter. In fact, there is much to be said for cutting back on this sort of public spending. After all, does the federal government not currently devote a certain percentage of its budget to the Department of Housing and Urban Development? Is this not money that could better be served elsewhere? In my view, it is necessary to abolish this wasteful government agency altogether. Let us do away, also, with the notion of “public housing.” After all, if we don’t spend on the housing of poor individuals, it isn’t public. Leave these individuals to their own devices. With luck, these areas will be privatized.
The next part of my proposal addresses those individuals currently living in middle class households, who may at some point lose their homes due to bankruptcy, or an economic downturn in the future, or simple bad luck. My fellow Republicans, let us throw aside any notion of “responsibility” for these individuals. After all, if one loses his house, he cannot possibly be very productive anyway. The proper role of the federal government in the case of housing is to impress upon Americans the value of “personal responsibility.” Individuals should be reminded that their housing situation is their personal responsibility. If a group of four individuals becomes homeless as a result of their misfortune, at least they still have access to fabric.
In short, I would argue that currently, we do too much to assist Americans with their housing situation. This is a dreadful waste of spending, and with little to show for it! My proposal here makes much more financial sense, and it allows lesser individuals the ability to learn how to fend for themselves.
Let Them Eat Cake
Currently, American individuals waste 40 percent of the food available to them, even as one in eight individuals lacks adequate access to food. This, obviously, is an absurd state of affairs. The United States, after all, has more than enough food to go around. So much so that there exist entire mountains worth of landfills heaped with discarded food. The Republican Party could in fact do much for its public image by making this food available to the masses.
At the same time, of course, Americans also suffer from what has been termed an obesity epidemic. According to the National Institute of Health, “more than two thirds (68.8 percent) of adults are considered to be overweight or obese.” This is simply unacceptable in a nation in which one in eight individuals already goes hungry. Hungry societies don’t produce, and fat societies are altogether too slow and wasteful to be economically valuable. Currently, as far as food is concerned, the United States has gotten the worst of both worlds.
Here, then, is my proposal. In order to feed the first group of individuals, that one in eight who go without food, our government should arrange to provide these individuals with the food supplies of the second group of individuals, the obese. This would be, if you will, food redistribution on a rather large scale, but it will ultimately be worth the cost if the result is that the one in eight become nourished and productive. In a sense, we will be doing what Marie Antoinette never actually advocated doing by allowing the poor and the starving to eat cake.
As for the second group comprised of the morbidly obese? We should arrange to provide those individuals with a rather different, leaner diet, to be comprised of the contents of the nations landfills. This should allow the vast majority of this group to lose their surplus weight. To my critics, who will argue about the supposed inhumanity of my proposal, I say, it need not be inhumane. After all, what is worse; eating a banana one finds in a pile of garbage, or dying of heart failure? The government can even take the liberty of building the required sidewalks and trails from every home leading to the local food waste areas. This way, in addition to providing individuals with access to uneaten food, they will also have been provided with sorely needed exercise.
Hopefully, this problem can be solved, eventually, with limited involvement from the government, and even fewer amounts of money. But without any practical solutions being provided in the near future, my proposal is certainly worthy of a larger debate.
Let All Republicans Have the Right to Vote
One aspect of American society that is unique and exceptional is that the United States is a democracy. Citizens within this nation have the theoretical right to vote. Someday, hopefully, this will be true in fact as well as on a very old piece of parchment. In the meantime, certain liabilities within our current system of government cannot, and should not, be ignored. One problem currently is that in many states, the poorest and most dark individuals have the ability to vote without proving their identification, and even their Americanness. The second, and most taxing issue, is that these individuals, when they have proven their worthiness to vote, almost without fail, vote Democrat. A large percentage of other individuals who technically qualify as legitimate voters also appear to vote for the Democrats. Obviously, my fellow Republicans, this is a problem. Democrats oppose our society, and opposition is dangerous. Here is what I propose.
Firstly, the current attempts by many states to impose voter i.d. laws in order to restrict the Democratic vote are steps in the right direction. These laws should be encouraged, preferably by raising the wages of the leaders of those states. States with the strictest voter i.d. laws will be given the greatest rewards, such as a marked decrease in the number of quarantine camps, added investment to state infrastructure, and removal of homeless populations from the state. All very well and good. But voter i.d. laws, by themselves, are not enough to put an end to Democratic voting. So there are other possible methods that state governments and the federal government might pursue.
The most involved method has already been given something of a test run in President Trump’s Election Integrity Commission. Largely the work of Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Chris Kobach, this commission seeks the information of all the 200 million or so voters across the nation. This is the correct approach, even if the EIC’s implementation leaves much to be desired. The most effective tool, and one which the EIC is but an early example of, is a national database, in which the names, home addresses and contact information of all voters nationally is updated daily. In this way, all individuals can be observed on a constant basis. Republican voters can be given rewards for their obeisance, while Democrat individuals can be tracked down, rounded up, and sent to the quarantine camps, since liberalism really is a disease of the mind. Although this proposal will likely require at least some federal investment, in the end, the expense will be worthwhile. After all, the GOP will effectively have removed its opposition without technically ending democracy.
Individuals will always be able to vote in our nation. The second problem is ensuring that they vote correctly. Currently, our nations public schools indoctrinate children into the Democratic way of life, which is un-American. On top of that, colleges and universities seek to radicalize the already liberalized youths produced by the public education system, resulting an a new generation of Democratic individuals who can pose a political threat. My proposal in this respect is for the federal government to allow the states to restructure their public education programs to resemble a more privatized version. When the federal government must get involved at all, it should be to set standards for the states on which subjects and ideals shall be considered appropriate for children’s studies. As for universities and colleges across the nation, they will have to be made public institutions, owned and controlled by the federal government. I propose a new department should be created for this purpose, to be called the Department of Higher Learning. Its mission shall be partially to educate and reeducate the young individuals of our nation into accepting the correct American values of the Republican Party. But its second purpose will be to locate those who continue to reject their education, and to provide the government with their whereabouts. By taking control of our nation’s education system, we can ensure that the voters of tomorrow will have the requisite information and proper values needed to cast the correct vote.
Now, all of this, particularly the Department of Higher Learning, will require some amount of spending on the part of the federal government. But this is spending that we can afford, since it results in a society that is stable, compliant, and agreeable. Furthermore, in the event that this department actually does get created, I nominate David Koch to be its first Secretary. After all, he has experience in cutting costs and making the finances of his businesses work. After much consideration, I believe this to be the best path forward for our country. I hope that we can put an end to the problem of individuals voting for the Democratic Party.
It is clear to me now that these modest proposals are collectively our nations best path towards financial solvency and social stability. Of course, our situation would be helped if the President did not appear to be absent from the fight a great deal of the time, but I do not have too much cause for complaint. After all, at least the Republican Party is attempting a repeal of Obamacare. If successful, repeal will be a major step in the right direction. And the President’s Election Integrity Commission may yet lead to some badly needed reforms in our nations election system. With the right sort of policies, housing can be provided to all within our nation, and both hunger and obesity can be ended.
Even if some of my more enthusiastic proposals seem impossible at the moment, take heart! A year ago, it seemed impossible that Donald Trump would ever be President. A moment has presented itself. Let us have the courage to take advantage of it.