A Proposal for Strengthening American Democracy
Re-balancing Our Constitutional Order for the 21st Century
I’m trying to work out what changes I would propose to address the obvious problems being faced by our nation today. My hope is that once Trump and the radical Republicans have lost power in Washington, that we will come together and implement new laws and systems to ensure that we are less likely to be subjected to what we are now experiencing. Just as the nation responded to Nixon by strengthening several laws, I believe that we should follow the Trump era by recognizing that his regime has demonstrated many weaknesses in our system that must be addressed.
Below, I provide the current list of actions that I think we should take. I am, of course, well-aware that these will not be universally or easily accepted. I am also aware that for these proposals to be fully understood, I will need to document each of them more completely. I hope to do so. Nonetheless, my hope is that what I have proposed here will at least motivate some discussion. I invite you, I encourage you, if you find anything here that you either support, oppose, or believe could be improved or should be modified, please comment on this post or send an email to let me know. Also, if there is something missing, please feel free to suggest it. Thanks in advance for your time and attention.
Summary
The United States government is undergoing a profound stress test. In my view, the constitutional “guardrails” designed to ensure a balance of power have proven insufficient to prevent a dangerous concentration of authority in the executive branch and a corresponding decline in the efficacy of the legislature. This imbalance, coupled with a growing public perception that our economic and political systems are fundamentally unfair, has led to a crisis of governance characterized by executive overreach, legislative gridlock, and eroding public trust.
This document outlines a package of integrated proposals I have developed to address these structural failings. They are not partisan in nature; rather, they are foundational reforms aimed at restoring a functional balance of power. This blueprint is designed to achieve several interconnected goals:
To re-empower Congress as the nation’s primary lawmaker by expanding the House, reforming the filibuster, and providing it with the institutional capacity to write the detailed laws and regulations needed to govern a complex modern society.
To clarify and constrain the President’s role to that of the nation’s chief executive, charged with faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress, while preserving the ability to act decisively in a genuine crisis.
To enhance the integrity and independence of the judiciary by separating administrative adjudication from the executive branch and implementing long-overdue ethics and structural reforms for the Supreme Court.
To ensure the transparency and accountability of public officials through robust, real-time disclosure of their financial activities.
To restore public faith in our economic system by making the tax code demonstrably fairer and guaranteeing the nation’s commitment to its most important social insurance program.
This is a proposal for renewing the promise of a government of laws, not of men.
Reclaiming Legislative Authority: Restoring the First Branch
The cornerstone of this reform package is the revitalization of Congress, the branch of government designed to be closest to the people.
Resize and Empower the House of Representatives
The House of Representatives is frozen at a size set in 1929, leading to massive constituencies that diminish representation. I propose that Congress pass a new apportionment act based on the “Cube Root Rule,” a political science standard that would increase the House size from 435 to approximately 700 members based on the current population.
Impact: This would create smaller, more responsive districts, making it more difficult to gerrymander. Crucially, it would re-balance the Electoral College by diluting the disproportionate weight of the two Senate electoral votes given to small states, ensuring the outcome more closely reflects the national popular will without a constitutional amendment.
Restore Congress as the Primary Rulemaker
To reclaim its exclusive constitutional power to legislate, Congress must be empowered to write the detailed regulations that implement its laws. This can be achieved through a new, constitutionally sound process.
Creation of a Legislative Technical Service (LTS): I propose the creation of a new, independent, and non-partisan legislative branch agency, staffed by the technical experts (scientists, economists, lawyers) who currently write regulations within executive agencies. The LTS’s sole mission will be to provide Congress with the in-house expertise to draft detailed, effective regulations.
Regulations Passed as Law: All such regulations will be passed as “Joint Resolutions of Regulatory Interpretation.” This ensures they are approved by both the House and the Senate and presented to the President for signature or veto, satisfying the requirements of Article I, Section 7.
Provision for Executive Action: To ensure governmental agility, the President will be granted statutory authority to issue temporary regulations in response to urgent national needs for which Congress has not yet legislated. These temporary regulations will automatically expire after 60 days unless formally approved by Congress through a Joint Resolution.
Impact: This model restores Congress as the primary author of law and policy, enhances the quality of legislation, and ends unconstitutional delegation, while still providing a crucial safety valve for decisive executive action in a crisis.
Reform the Senate Filibuster
To address legislative gridlock, I propose the Senate reform its rules with a “slow lane” approach: if a cloture vote on a bill fails to achieve a 60-vote majority, the bill is not killed. Instead, a final period of 30 hours of debate is triggered, after which the bill must receive a final up-or-down vote that passes with a simple majority.
Impact: This would eliminate the minority’s ability to completely block legislation, guaranteeing that every bill gets a final vote, while still preserving the Senate’s tradition of extended debate and deliberation.
Abolish the Debt Ceiling to End Self-Imposed Crises
The statutory debt limit is a relic of World War I, originally designed to make it easier for the Treasury to issue bonds and pay the bills that Congress had authorized. Today, its function is the exact opposite. It serves no useful purpose and has been transformed into a political weapon used to threaten a catastrophic default on our national obligations, enabling a minority to interfere with the legally authorized operations of the government. I propose that Congress pass a law to abolish the debt ceiling entirely.
Impact: This would align the U.S. with the practice of nearly every other major economy. It would allow the Treasury to pay the bills that Congress has already incurred, ending the perpetual cycle of manufactured crises that create global financial uncertainty and increase borrowing costs for taxpayers. Debates about the proper level of debt and spending would continue to happen where they belong: during the annual budget and appropriations process
Creating an Institutional Response to the Judiciary
Congress often fails to act when federal courts interpret statutes in ways that diverge from legislative intent, or when new constitutional rulings create legal voids that only Congress can fill. This inertia effectively cedes legislative authority to the courts by default. To address this, I propose the creation of a new, non-partisan division within the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to be called the “Congressional Office of Statutory and Constitutional Review” (COSCR).
The COSCR’s mandate would be to track major federal court decisions and publish an annual “Judicial Impact Report.” This report would trigger a two-track, action-forcing mechanism:
For cases of statutory interpretation, where the Court has interpreted a law passed by Congress, the relevant committee must report a “Joint Resolution of Congressional Position.” This would force a vote on whether Congress concurs with or dissents from the Court’s interpretation and intends to pursue clarifying legislation.
For cases of constitutional interpretation that impact the functioning of existing federal law (such as when a right previously protected by the Court is overturned), the committee must report a “Joint Resolution of Legislative Intent.” This would force Congress to vote on a resolution stating whether it intends to amend the affected statutes to conform with the new ruling, or whether it will defer taking legislative action.
Impact: This refined mechanism compels Congress to engage with judicial decisions in a constitutionally appropriate manner. It forces members to take public responsibility for the state of the law without directly challenging the Supreme Court’s authority as the final arbiter of the Constitution. It ensures that the final word on our nation’s laws rests with the elected legislature, not with the judiciary by default.
Defining and Constraining Executive Power
To re-balance the system, the role of the President must be returned to its constitutional boundaries through both constitutional amendment and targeted statutes.
A Constitutional Amendment to Clarify Presidential Authority
The ambiguity of Article II’s Vesting Clause is the source of claims to unlimited, inherent executive power. I propose a constitutional amendment to replace the first sentence of Article II, Section 1 with the following:
“A President of the United States of America shall be vested with the authority to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and to exercise the other powers enumerated in this Constitution.”
Impact: This amendment would definitively end the debate over unenumerated presidential powers. It would clarify that the President’s primary role is to execute the laws passed by Congress, supplemented only by the specific powers explicitly granted in the Constitution.
Reclaim War Powers
To restore Congress’s constitutional role in matters of war and peace, I propose the repeal of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and its replacement with a new “War Powers and Authorization Act.” This law would require the President to receive affirmative, prior authorization from Congress before introducing armed forces into hostilities, except in the case of repelling a direct attack on the United States. To enforce this, the Act would include an automatic funding cutoff for any unauthorized military deployment after 60 days.
Reform Emergency Powers
To prevent the abuse of emergency declarations, I propose a fundamental reform of the National Emergencies Act of 1976. The new law would require any emergency declared by the President to automatically expire after 30 days unless Congress votes to extend it. When declaring an emergency, the President must specify which statutory powers he intends to use. Any congressional extension would be limited in duration to no more than one year, or sixty days after the beginning of a new Congress, whichever is longer.
Restore the Senate’s Role of Advice and Consent
To prevent the President from bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role, I propose the “Advice and Consent Restoration Act.” This statute would amend the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to limit the tenure of any “acting” official in a Senate-confirmable role to a non-extendable 120 days. Furthermore, it would explicitly prohibit any individual who has been formally nominated for a position and rejected by the Senate from being appointed as the “acting” official for that same role.
Fortifying the Democratic Process
Ensure Full Suffrage for All Citizens
A foundational principle of democracy is that all citizens should have a voice in electing their leaders. Currently, millions of U.S. citizens residing in territories and some living abroad are denied the right to vote for President. This is inconsistent with our nation’s democratic ideals. To correct this, I propose a new constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of all citizens to be represented in the Electoral College.
Section 1. For purposes of representation in the election of the President and Vice President, the United States shall include the territories. Congress shall have the power to implement this article by appropriate legislation, including provisions for citizens residing outside the United States.
Section 2. A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the residents of territories would be entitled if the territories were a single State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Impact: This amendment would enfranchise millions of American citizens, fulfilling the promise of a government representative of all its people and enhancing the legitimacy of presidential elections.
Creating a Modern, Secure, and Humane Immigration System
Our current immigration system is broken. It is economically inefficient, failing to provide legal pathways that meet our country’s labor needs, and it is inhumane to the millions of long-term residents who live in the shadows. To restore the rule of law, I propose that Congress pass a comprehensive reform bill that addresses this problem from all sides. The bill would have four core components:
A Conditional Pathway to Citizenship: Create a fair and achievable, but earned, pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who entered the country prior to January 1, 2025. To be eligible, they must meet stringent requirements, including long-term residency, passing thorough criminal background checks that disqualify anyone convicted of a serious crime, and passing a civics and English proficiency test similar to the U.S. Naturalization Test.
Serious Enforcement Against Unlawful Employers: Significantly increase the civil and criminal penalties for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, turning off the "jobs magnet" that encourages illegal immigration.
A Reliable and Mandatory Verification System: To make employer enforcement fair and effective, phase in a mandatory, nationwide E-Verify system. This system must be made simple, fast, reliable, and free for all employers, providing them with a "safe harbor" from prosecution if they use it in good faith to verify the legal status of all new hires.
New Guest Worker Programs: To meet the demonstrated needs of our economy, especially in agriculture and other non-agricultural sectors with labor shortages, create new, flexible temporary guest worker visa programs. These programs would allow foreign workers to enter the country legally for a defined period to fill essential jobs, but would not represent a pathway to citizenship, thereby reducing the incentive for illegal immigration driven by economic need.
Impact: This balanced, four-part approach creates an immigration system that is both humane and secure. It provides a permanent solution for the existing undocumented population while restoring the integrity of our laws by creating legal channels for temporary work and making it much more difficult for employers to hire undocumented workers in the future. This would create a more orderly, manageable, and fair system for all.
Reinforcing Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law
To ensure the laws are applied fairly, the administrative judiciary must be separated from executive branch influence, and our core legal institutions must be protected from political interference.
Establish an Independent Administrative Judiciary
I propose a constitutional amendment to move the corps of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) out of the executive and into the judiciary, creating a new tier of specialized, term-limited courts. The proposed amendment to Article III would read:
Section 4.
Clause 1: Congress shall have the power to establish tribunals within the Judicial Branch presided over by Administrative Adjudicators to hear cases and controversies arising from the execution of the laws of the United States, as defined by law.
Clause 2: The requirement in Section 1 of this Article that Judges hold their Offices during good Behaviour shall not apply to Administrative Adjudicators. Congress shall have the power to set the term of office, manner of appointment, and qualifications for such adjudicators.
Clause 3: The right of appeal from the decisions of these tribunals to a Court established under Section 1 of this Article shall not be abridged.
Impact: This reform would create a legitimate, independent judiciary for regulatory disputes, enhancing the separation of powers while the guaranteed right of appeal ensures consistency and oversight.
Implement Supreme Court Term Limits
To de-escalate the political toxicity of Supreme Court confirmations and restore the Court’s legitimacy, I propose a statutory reform to end life tenure in active service. The law would establish a single, non-renewable 18-year term for Supreme Court Justices. To comply with Article III, after 18 years of active service, a Justice would be designated a “Senior Justice,” retaining their office and salary while being available to serve on lower appellate courts. In the event of an unexpected vacancy on the Court, the most recently designated Senior Justice would temporarily return to active status to ensure the Court always has nine members.
Impact: This system creates a regular, predictable appointment process—one new Justice in the first and third year of every presidential term. It makes the Court more responsive to the nation’s democratic evolution over time and lowers the political stakes of any single confirmation battle.
Enact a Binding Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court
The nine Justices of the Supreme Court are the only judges in the federal system not bound by a formal code of ethical conduct. To restore public confidence, I propose that Congress pass the “Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.” This law would require the Judicial Conference to establish a binding code of conduct for the Justices, including clear standards for recusal, gift and travel transparency, and a requirement for written justification when a Justice declines to recuse themselves from a case where a conflict has been raised.
Codify Protections for the Department of Justice
To prevent the politicization of justice, I propose that Congress pass the “Department of Justice Independence Act.” This law would establish statutory “for cause” removal protections for the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI. “For cause” would be defined to include misconduct or dereliction of duty, while explicitly excluding a refusal to interfere in an investigation for political reasons.
Ensuring Transparency and Accountability for Public Officials
A healthy republic requires an informed electorate and confidence that officials are working in the public interest.
Mandate Comprehensive Financial Transparency
I propose a new statute, the “Federal Candidate and Officeholder Tax Transparency Act,” to ensure continuous financial disclosure.
Initial and Annual Disclosure: Upon filing with the FEC, a candidate’s six preceding years of tax returns will be published within 90 days. An annual disclosure of the prior year’s return will then be required for every year the individual remains an active candidate or serves in office.
Right to Review and Correct: A 15-day window will be provided for candidates/officeholders to review redacted documents and correct any IRS clerical errors before publication.
Plain-Language Summary: The IRS will be required to publish a standardized, one-page summary of key data (Total Income, Taxes Paid, Effective Tax Rate, Charitable Contributions) for each return.
Tiered Audits and Secure Portal: A full, manual audit will be reserved for high-level officeholders and major candidates, while all returns will be published on a single, secure, official government portal.
Impact: This system creates robust, continuous transparency while ensuring procedural fairness and providing clear, accessible information to voters.
Require Pre-Trade Disclosure for Members of Congress
To prevent conflicts of interest, I propose that Congress be subject to the same kind of prophylactic ethics rules that already apply to corporate executives with access to privileged information. A new law would require members of Congress, their spouses, and senior staff to publicly file a “Notice of Intended Transaction” 30 days prior to making a trade in any individual stock or security, a direct application of the principles behind the SEC’s Rule 10b5-1.
Impact: This proactive “sunlight” approach forces accountability before a transaction occurs and creates a powerful deterrent against even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Promoting Economic Fairness and Fiscal Responsibility
Restoring trust in government also requires addressing the perception that our economic system is no longer fair.
Guarantee Social Security and Restore Public Confidence
I propose that Congress pass the “Social Security Guarantee Act.” This act would reform the program’s financing by eliminating the automatic benefit reduction provision, while explicitly authorizing the Treasury to make payments from the general fund to cover any shortfall. The Social Security Trust Fund would be retained as an important accounting tool to track the program’s finances and as a powerful symbol of the “earned right” nature of the benefits.
Impact: This reform would end the recurring political crises and public anxiety over the program’s future, making the federal government’s commitment to pay scheduled benefits explicit and ironclad.
Create a More Progressive and Fairer Tax System
To restore public confidence in the tax code’s fairness, I propose a series of reforms to ensure that the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations pay a fair share.
More Progressive Personal Income Tax: Add new tax brackets for extremely high incomes to ensure that the marginal tax rate on annual personal income above $25 million (in 2025 dollars) is no less than 90%.
Cap the Capital Gains Preference: Limit the amount of investment income eligible for the preferential long-term capital gains rate to $5 million per year. Any capital gains income above this cap would be taxed at the higher ordinary income rates.
Limit the “Step-Up in Basis”: Limit the “step-up in basis” that allows capital gains to be passed on to heirs tax-free. I propose a $5 million lifetime exemption per person on capital gains transferred at death. Any gains above this amount would be taxed.
Close the Carried Interest Loophole: Pass a law to close the loophole that allows private equity managers to classify their labor income as capital gains, ensuring they pay the same ordinary income tax rates as other high-earning professionals.
Impact: This suite of targeted tax reforms ensures that at the highest levels of income and wealth, income from wealth is no longer treated more favorably than income from work. This would increase tax fairness, generate significant revenue, and reduce extreme economic inequality.
Promoting Fair Competition and Rewarding True Value Creation
A healthy market economy depends on a tax system that rewards genuine innovation and productive enterprise. The current flat corporate tax fails to distinguish between the normal profits earned by a business in a competitive environment and the supernormal profits that can result from monopoly power, government-granted privileges, or other market distortions. To promote true competition, I propose that the nation begin a serious debate on replacing the flat tax with a progressive surtax on supernormal corporate profits. Such an “excess profits tax” would be indexed to a company’s rate of return on capital in excess of some legislated “normal” return. While I recognize that the precise definitions and mechanisms require rigorous expert analysis, the principle itself provides a clear path forward. To that end, I propose that Congress formally direct the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to study this proposal and report to the American people with specific, workable models.
Impact: Initiating this debate would signal a commitment to strengthening free-market principles. It would begin the process of designing a more efficient tax system that encourages true competition and rewards earned success over the extraction of economic rents, thereby ensuring a more dynamic and trusted capitalist system.
Restore the Purpose of Tax-Advantaged Retirement Accounts
To address the issue of “mega-IRAs” being used as tax shelters, I propose that Congress establish a cumulative cap on the total value of an individual’s tax-advantaged retirement accounts at $5 million (indexed to inflation). If an individual’s aggregate balance exceeds this cap, the excess amount would be subject to a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD). To ensure fairness, this RMD would be phased in over a five-year period, with a minimum of 20% of the initial excess amount required to be withdrawn each year. These withdrawals would be taxed as ordinary income.
Impact: This highly targeted reform would affect only a tiny fraction of the wealthiest savers, restoring the original purpose of retirement accounts while generating significant tax revenue in a fair manner.
Mandate a “Single Price” System for All Healthcare Services
The current healthcare market is broken, characterized by opaque, discriminatory pricing that favors the largest players and punishes the vulnerable. To restore sanity and fairness to healthcare pricing, I propose the “Healthcare Fair Price Act.” This law would not set prices, but would require that any given provider — be it a hospital, clinic, or doctor — must set a single, transparent, and published price for each specific service, drug, or medical device they provide. That price must be charged to every payer, whether they are a large insurance company, a small insurer, or an uninsured individual paying out-of-pocket. Price discrimination would be illegal.
Impact: This reform is not a government takeover of healthcare; it is a market-based rule to ensure true competition. It would have several profound effects:
It would create unprecedented price transparency, allowing consumers to shop for care based on price and quality for the first time.
It would level the playing field between large and small insurance companies, forcing them to compete based on their own internal efficiency, customer service, and ability to manage care, rather than their ability to use market muscle to get secret discounts.
It would end the practice of price-gouging the uninsured, ensuring they are charged the same rate as the most powerful insurer.
Crucially, it would be a major step toward making a future single-payer system more achievable. By creating a single, transparent price for every medical service in the country, it would dramatically simplify the eventual transition to a system where the government acts as the single payer for those established prices.
Ending the “Hidden Tax” of Uncompensated Care
Under federal law (EMTALA), hospitals are required to provide emergency care to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. While this is a moral and legal imperative, the cost of this uncompensated care is not paid for by the government. Instead, hospitals cover these costs by overcharging their privately insured patients. This “cost-shift” functions as a hidden and inefficient tax on everyone with health insurance. I propose that Congress create a new federal program to directly reimburse hospitals for the documented costs of providing EMTALA-mandated treatment to the uninsured.
Impact: This reform would make the cost of our nation’s healthcare safety net transparent and honestly funded by the public through taxes, rather than hidden in the inflated hospital bills and insurance premiums of private citizens. It would eliminate a primary justification hospitals use for charging high prices, which, when combined with other reforms, should lead to lower healthcare costs for all Americans.
Enforcing the “Community Benefit” Standard for Non-Profit Hospitals
Non-profit hospitals receive billions of dollars in tax exemptions in exchange for providing a “community benefit.” However, this standard is poorly enforced, and many non-profits use their market power to charge exorbitant prices. To ensure this public subsidy is truly earned, I propose that Congress pass the “Non-Profit Hospital Accountability Act.” This law would establish a clear, bright-line rule for maintaining tax-exempt status: over a given fiscal year, the average price a hospital charges to private payers across all services may not exceed 250% of the average Medicare reimbursement rate for those same services. The penalty for violating this standard would be the revocation of the hospital’s tax-exempt status.
Impact: This reform uses a powerful, existing enforcement mechanism to curb systemic price-gouging by non-profit monopolies. By using an average, it gives hospitals the flexibility to manage the complex finances of different medical services while still ensuring that their overall pricing structure serves the community rather than simply maximizing revenue.
Proposals I Have Not Made
To provide a clearer understanding of this document’s perspective, it is useful to outline several major reform proposals, often associated either with modern conservatives or with liberals, for which I am not advocating. While I don’t accept these proposal as they stand, I am still often considering doing so or trying to find better solutions to the problems addressed.
Proposals Often Made by Conservatives
A Balanced Budget Amendment
This would amend the Constitution to require that federal spending not exceed revenue in any fiscal year.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would enforce fiscal discipline, end deficit spending, reduce the national debt, and lift an immoral burden from future generations.
Rebuttal: This would eliminate the government’s ability to use fiscal policy to fight recessions (through automatic stabilizers and stimulus spending), potentially turning minor downturns into major depressions. It would also force massive, immediate cuts to popular programs like Social Security, Medicare, and national defense.
Term Limits for Members of Congress
This would amend the Constitution to limit the number of terms a member of the House or Senate could serve.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would ensure a constant influx of “citizen legislators,” break up entrenched power, reduce the influence of lobbyists, and make Congress more responsive to the people.
Rebuttal: This would create a legislature of perpetual amateurs, shifting power from elected representatives to unelected, permanent staff and lobbyists who would possess all the institutional knowledge. It also infringes on the right of voters to choose whomever they deem most qualified to represent them.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment
This would amend the Constitution to return the power of appointing U.S. Senators to the state legislatures.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would restore the principle of federalism by making Senators directly accountable to state governments, giving states a powerful check on federal overreach.
Rebuttal: This would be a profoundly anti-democratic step, disenfranchising millions of voters and returning the selection of Senators to state legislatures, which are often heavily gerrymandered and prone to corruption and partisan gridlock.
A Federal “Regulatory Budget”
This would enact a law to cap the total economic cost that federal agencies can impose on the public through new regulations each year.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would make the hidden costs of regulation transparent and force a public debate on the trade-offs, creating an incentive for agencies to find the most efficient, least burdensome regulations.
Rebuttal: It is practically impossible to accurately quantify the costs (and especially the benefits, like cleaner air or safer products) of regulations in advance. This would create a system that prioritizes easily measured compliance costs over harder-to-measure public benefits, leading to weaker protections for health, safety, and the environment.
Converting Federal Programs into Block Grants
This would convert large federal social programs (like Medicaid) into block grants, sending lump sums of money to states to run their own programs with broad flexibility.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would shrink the federal bureaucracy and allow states to act as “laboratories of democracy,” creating innovative and more efficient programs tailored to their local needs.
Rebuttal: This would likely lead to a “race to the bottom,” as states, facing budget pressures, would have a strong incentive to cut benefits and services for their most vulnerable populations. It would also eliminate the national standards that ensure a basic level of support for all citizens, regardless of where they live.
A National “Right-to-Work” Law
This would enact a federal law stating that no person can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would protect individual workers’ freedom of association and end the system of “compulsory unionism,” making labor markets more flexible and promoting economic growth.
Rebuttal: This is designed to weaken unions by allowing “free riders” — workers who benefit from a union’s collective bargaining without contributing to its costs. This would erode the power of organized labor, leading to lower wages, weaker benefits, and less safe working conditions for all workers.
Enact National School Choice
This would enact a law allowing federal education funds to follow a student to any accredited school of their choice—public, private, charter, or homeschool—rather than being sent directly to public school districts.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would introduce competition into the K-12 education system, breaking the “government monopoly” and forcing all schools to improve. It would empower parents, especially those in low-income areas with failing public schools, to choose the best educational environment for their children.
Rebuttal: This would drain critical funding from public schools, which are obligated to serve all students, and subsidize private and religious schools that are not accountable to the public. It would likely lead to greater stratification and inequality in education, leaving the most disadvantaged students behind in under-resourced public schools.
Abolish Redundant Federal Departments
This would propose the systematic elimination of entire cabinet-level departments whose functions are seen as unconstitutional or better left to the states and the private sector. Common targets include the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would dramatically reduce the size, cost, and scope of the federal government, returning power to the states and the people as the Framers intended. It would eliminate redundant programs and burdensome regulations that stifle economic growth.
Rebuttal: This would eliminate critical national functions. Abolishing the Department of Energy would gut oversight of the nation’s nuclear arsenal; eliminating the Department of Commerce would harm our ability to conduct the census and manage oceanic resources; and eliminating the Department of Education would harm students with disabilities and those in low-income communities who rely on federal programs and protections.
Require a Supermajority to Raise Taxes
This would amend the Constitution to require a two-thirds or three-fifths supermajority vote in both houses of Congress to pass any new federal tax or increase any existing tax rate.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would create a powerful and permanent check on the government’s ability to raise taxes, protecting taxpayers from the shifting winds of politics and forcing Congress to focus on cutting spending rather than raising revenue to solve fiscal problems.
Rebuttal: This would give a small minority of legislators a permanent veto over the fiscal policy of the entire country, leading to chronic gridlock and making it impossible to respond to national crises or address the national debt in a balanced way. It would force the government to rely almost exclusively on spending cuts, disproportionately harming the most vulnerable.
Proposals Often Made by Liberals
Enact Public Financing of Elections
This would fundamentally reform campaign finance by creating a system of public funding for all federal elections. One common model provides candidates with a 6-to-1 match for small-dollar donations (e.g., up to $200), funded by a surcharge on corporate lawbreaking penalties. This would be paired with a constitutional amendment to overturn judicial precedents like Citizens United, allowing Congress to regulate independent expenditures by corporate entities.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would empower ordinary citizens, reduce the influence of wealthy megadonors and special interests, and free candidates from the endless cycle of fundraising.
Rebuttal: This infringes on the First Amendment’s protection of political speech. It would also force taxpayers to subsidize the campaigns of candidates they find repugnant and could entrench the power of incumbent parties.
Establish Universal Pre-Kindergarten and Child Care
This would create a new, federally-funded social program to guarantee access to high-quality, affordable child care and pre-kindergarten for every family in America. The program would cap what most families pay for child care at a small percentage of their income.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it is a critical investment in early childhood development, would enable millions of parents (especially women) to join and remain in the workforce, and would significantly reduce both gender and economic inequality.
Rebuttal: This would be an enormously expensive new federal entitlement, creating a massive new bureaucracy and placing a heavy burden on taxpayers. It could also crowd out existing private and faith-based child care providers. In any case, the proper source for the bulk of school funding is, and should remain, the states, not the federal government.
Provide Widespread Student Debt Relief and Affordable Higher Education
This reform would address the student debt crisis through a two-pronged approach: a one-time cancellation of a significant amount of federal student loan debt (e.g., $50,000 per borrower) and making public colleges, universities, and trade schools tuition-free for most families.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would be a powerful economic stimulus, freeing up a generation from a crushing debt burden and allowing them to buy homes, start families, and launch businesses. It would treat higher education as a public good, essential for a modern economy.
Rebuttal: Conservatives would argue that this is a regressive policy that disproportionately benefits higher-earning college graduates at the expense of taxpayers who did not attend college. They would also believe that it is fundamentally unfair to those who have already paid off their student loans or chose more affordable educational paths. Neither of these arguments is compelling. [TBD – The correct solution requires more thought.]
Pass Comprehensive Criminal Justice Reform
This would enact a major federal law to address mass incarceration and police misconduct. Key provisions would include ending cash bail for non-violent offenses, banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants at the federal level, creating a national registry for police misconduct, and reforming mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would reduce the profound racial disparities in the justice system, make communities safer by focusing resources on serious crime, and create a more just and humane system for all.
Rebuttal: [TBD]
Strengthen Labor and the Right to Organize
This would pass a law, often modeled on the PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize Act), to make it easier for workers to form and join unions. It would strengthen penalties on companies that engage in union-busting, ban “captive audience” meetings, and override state-level “right-to-work” laws.
Impact: Advocates for this argue that it would reverse decades of declining worker power, allowing employees to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. This would be a powerful tool for reducing economic inequality.
Rebuttal: [TBD]
Assessment and Anticipated Objections
This package of reforms, if enacted, would fundamentally alter the American system of government, creating a new equilibrium designed to restore public trust. The overarching impact would be to forge a government that is more representative, transparent, ethical, and deliberative. Power would shift decisively from the executive to a larger, more capable, and more responsive legislature. The President’s role would be clarified as the nation’s chief administrator, while the judiciary’s independence and integrity would be reinforced. Key economic policies, from taxation to social insurance, would be reformed to enhance public confidence in their fairness and stability by ensuring that the benefits of our economy are more broadly shared and that income from immense wealth is not treated more favorably than income from work.
However, such a profound restructuring would face significant and powerful objections. Critics would argue that these changes would create a government that is inefficient and prone to gridlock, a threat to national security due to a loss of executive energy, and one that risks economic disruption. I disagree.
Ultimately, in my view, this framework represents a deliberate balancing of interests. It trades the speed and discretion of a powerful executive for the deliberation, consensus-building, and accountability of a strong legislature. It is based on the belief that rebuilding the public’s trust in the fairness, integrity, and representativeness of their government is the most critical task facing the Republic, even if it comes at the cost of some efficiency.
I recognize that the political challenges to enacting such a comprehensive package are monumental. However, the value of this framework is not measured solely by its immediate feasibility. It is intended to serve as a “North Star”—a coherent vision of a re-balanced constitutional order. Knowing what an ideal solution looks like is essential for evaluating the merit of the more incremental, “next best” reforms that may be proposed. Furthermore, laying out the full scope of these interconnected problems and their potential solutions serves a vital public purpose: to stimulate a more ambitious national conversation and motivate others to engage in the ongoing work of perfecting our Union.