On November 4th, American voters made history by electing the country’s first African American president in a move which, I hope, marks the dawn of an era where racism and sexism can be thought of as “things of the past.”
Now, like countless others, I too have a (relatively) nonpartisan wish list for the Obama administration – many of which my Capitol Hill staffer friend Bill will tell me are hopelessly unfeasible regardless of how nonpartisan they may be, but darn it all, can’t I hope for change? Here are 6 things I hope will change:
- Greater globalization – This is probably the most partisan item on my wishlist, but it really shouldn’t be. Economists on both sides of the aisle have made this argument for years, but I’ll make it again – trade is good for the economy and helps to encourage diplomacy over war. Immigration is good for the economy and helps to introduce new ideas and perspectives into American society. Financial market integration is good fro the economy by expanding access for people and businesses to deep pools of capital. For an Obama administration to truly represent the hope, change, and tolerance, Obama must ignore the calls from members of his party seeking increased tariffs and trade restrictions, and members of the opposition party who seek to stop immigration and engagement with the global community.
- Going digital – It’s 2008. Yet, if you were to look at practically any US government website, you’d think it was 1994. This has to change – not just for the web-savvy, but because the US government is not taking advantage of available technology which can help voters stay informed about the laws and decisions which affect their lives. For starters, I want to see RSS feeds which give updates on legislation and treaties. I want to see the CBO, the BLS, and everyone else up upload their data in an interactive and easily-searchable format akin to Google Finance. I want to be able to see streaming video of every testimony and hearing. I want the CIA world factbook to be a searchable mashup of Google Maps and Wikipedia. I want to see a blog which helps to explain in plain terms what each bill under discussion means. And, yes, it will cost money and take time, but, frankly, this is something I feel the government is obligated to do for its people.
- Carbon tax – Global warming and the dependence of the US economy on oil are serious issues. Although both parties have pushed the idea of funding research on alternative energy, both sides have stopped just short of backing a solution which has achieved broad consensus among policy analysts and economists, stands the best chance of not only increasing private funding of research on green technology and carbon sequestration but also of reducing US carbon emissions in the short term (rather than just the long term): a tax on carbon emissions. When you have both Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich agreeing that action on global warming must be taken, I think the new administration has very few excuses left for why such a tax shouldn’t be passed.
- Changing the role of the FDA – The FDA is currently deplored by different groups for different things. Patients and doctors needing new treatments bemoan the FDA’s lack of speed. Bio/pharma companies have great difficulty getting new treatments to market quickly. Consumer advocacy groups fear the FDA is not stringent enough. Doctors are confused by the information that is available on a particular drug. To me, all of these problems stem from the FDA playing too much of a role in determining what “safe” and “effective” are, and too little a role in making sure that the information available to medical professionals is accurate, up-to-date, and meaningful. Why should the FDA do the incredibly vague and complex task of being the final arbiter of which treatments “make the cut”, when (a) they should not be making this decision (the correct balance of safety, efficacy, and cost should be a decision made between doctor and patient), (b) this role creates an antagonistic relationship with all the relevant stakeholders, and (c) they could provide a lot more value by regulating information, rather than the decision itself – an example of “smart” regulation rather than more regulation. I would like to see the FDA focus on two tasks: clinical trial design/management (making sure bio/pharma companies conduct and correctly interpret the right tests) and assisting medical professionals in interpreting and understanding the data that is available.
- Changing the structure of healthcare coverage – I’ve blogged before about what I think should happen, but the main thrust of this is – the partisan solutions for healthcare are absurd in their commitment to ideology rather than pragmatism. I see the two core problems of healthcare today as (a) a lack of coverage and (b) managed care hurting the relationship between patient and doctor. What I want to see the next administration do is actually address both issues rather than choose to address one concern over the other. I think this entails requiring all people to, one, pay for all health expenses out of pocket with tax-deductible savings accounts and, two, be required to purchase catastrophic insurance which kicks in after the health expenses exceed a certain amount.
- Reorganizing and redirecting the national security/intelligence agencies – I cannot believe that it takes multiple organizations with overlapping priorities and jurisdictions to handle US intelligence operations. I will admit I am unaware of all the intricacies involved, but even if the four groups did completely separate things, I see no reason why they shouldn’t all be part of one larger organization which can coordinate resources so as to avoid waste and interdepartmental conflicts. Furthermore, I believe the US agencies are obsessed with “traditional” threats – physical threats such as bombs, terrorists, and military invasions. I think this is misguided, and that significant effort must be directed towards “non-traditional threats” such as pandemic diseases (the Spanish Flu of 1918 killed more people than all of World War II and was very similar to today’s Bird Flu), cyberattack (the Chinese government is suspected to command a cyber-army which has been suspected to have already infiltrated many US systems), and climate change (what kind of national security are you going to have if stronger hurricanes destroy, for good this time, the Gulf Coast’s energy producing capability?).