With the Supreme Court ruling on President Obama’s health care law, everyone is wondering what’s next for big government. Here are some ideas for federal policymakers to consider:

Federal Broccoli Act of 2013: Eat your broccoli, else pay the IRS $1,000.

Federal Recycling Act of 2014: Fill your blue box and put on the curb, else pay the IRS $2,000.

Federal Green Car Act of 2015: Make your next car battery powered, else pay the IRS $3,000.

Federal Domestic Jobs Act of 2016: Don’t exceed 25 percent foreign content on family consumer purchases, else pay the IRS $4,000.

Federal Obesity Act of 2017: Achieve listed BMI on your mandated annual physical, else pay the IRS $5,000.

Federal National Service Act of 2018: Serve two years in the military or the local soup kitchen, else pay the IRS $6,000.

Federal Housing Efficiency Act of 2019: Don’t exceed 1,000 square feet of living space per person in your household, else pay the IRS $7,000.

Federal Population Growth Act of 2020: Don’t exceed two children per couple, else pay the IRS $8,000.

Even though the Supreme Court action today is a setback for those of us who’ve fought for decades to revive limited constitutional government, it’s hardly the end of the road. The ideas this litigation put in play – in the court decisions below, in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, and in the huge debate that has taken place across the country – will not go away. They’re the ideas of limited constitutional government that are as compelling today as they were when the Founders first articulated them over two centuries ago, even if this Court has found itself unable to give them force in this case.

But it’s not simply that the ideas are now “out of the bottle” as they haven’t been for a very long time. More deeply, it’s because they address the fundamental problem the nation faces today – out-of-control government, at all levels, giving us a looming economic disaster – that they’ll increasingly be in play. After today’s decision, it will fall to the people themselves, who’ve opposed this legislation from the beginning, to elect a Congress that stands for restoring limited constitutional government, such that a future Court will be better able to do what this Court should have done.

Talking to Marketplace Radio, former Senate Majority Leader turned lobbyist Tom Daschle is candid about the attractions of political office:

Hobson: What do you miss about your time in the public sector, if anything at this point? You’ve been in the private sector for a while.

Daschle: Well, to be honest, I miss the power. The senators have an enormous amount of power, probably second only to the president of the United States.

He’s doing OK in what Marketplace laughingly calls “the private sector” — they mean “the rent-seeking sector” — having made some $5.3 million in his first two years for “providing strategic advice” at a lobbying/​law firm. But he still misses the power.

As I’ve written elsewhere, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has to rank as one of the most misguided and destructive federal programs. In addition to subsidizing the destruction of the environment, it also encourages families to live in harm’s way. The solution should be to end it and let the private market appropriately price the risk. If Congress chooses not to end the NFIP, it should at least reduce the subsidies behind the program. Surprisingly enough, S. 1940, currently on the Senate floor, does just that.

Over the next 9 years, S. 1940 would increase revenues under the NFIP by $4.7 billion, as estimated by CBO. This is $4.7 billion that wouldn’t have to be paid by the taxpayer but instead would be paid by those who benefit from flood insurance. My estimate is that this represents about half of the program’s current subsidies. Such a major reduction in subsidies would also allow the private sector to have some chance at actually competing.

There have been some complaints raised that S. 1940 expands the program and “gasp” actually includes an “individual mandate” like ObamaCare. Such misunderstands the nature of the NFIP. The core nature of NFIP is that if a community wants to be eligible for federal disaster assistance, then it must participate in the NFIP and borrowers, in said community, with a federal mortgage, who live in the 100 year floodplain, must buy flood insurance. S. 1940 extends that requirement, over a number of years, to homes with federal mortgages that exist behind dams, levees and other man-made structures. As Hurricane Katrina taught us, having a levee is no absolute protection for either the homeowner or the taxpayer. While dams and levees can reduce the frequency of flood loss, they do so at the cost of increasing the severity when it does happen.

The important point is that the current program and “residual risk” provisions of S.1940 do not require anyone to do anything. Every community in America is free to leave the program. Also homes within communities that stay can avoid the purchase requirement by not getting a federal mortgage (which the taxpayer stands behind). If this encourages an expansion of a mortgage market not backed by the taxpayer, then all the better. S.1940 also exempts small dollar premiums from the residual risk requirement. The residual risk provisions would also incorporate into the premium pricing any real reduction in flood risk that results from a dam or levee.

Again the ultimate solution is to eliminate the NFIP, so that free individuals can choose which risk they take and which they pay others to bear. Until then, reducing federal subsidies and forcing federal programs to more actually price risk will not only help protect the taxpayer, but also improve the functioning of our mortgage market. S.1940, along with its residual risk requirements, is a step in that direction (and considerably better than the House version, which does actually increase the taxpayers’ exposure).

NPR has a story on Mitt Romney’s hopes to win back some of the youth vote that went so heavily for Barack Obama in 2008, and today’s Diane Rehm show is looking at the politics of the generation gap.

I wrote about the youth vote earlier this month for the Huffington Post. I argued that Obama’s Bush-retread policies on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war on drugs would reduce his appeal to young voters. And most importantly, I said:

Debt. And finally, perhaps the longest-term impact President Obama will have on today’s young people. The national debt has increased by $5 trillion, about 50 percent, during Obama’s 3–1/2 years in office. As a percentage of GDP, it’s the highest since World War II. The average amount of student loan debt is $25,000, but each American owes about $45,000 for the national debt.

Worse, the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements programs are estimated anywhere from $62 trillion to twice that much. That amounts to $500,000 to as much as a million dollars for every American household. The promises that government has made are unsustainable, and it’s today’s young workers who will end up holding the bag when the money runs out.

It’s not like Romney has any serious plan to reduce the debt burden on today’s young people, and if they really wanted to end the wars and avoid bankruptcy, they’d probably vote for Gary Johnson. But we can at least hope that in addition to promising college students cheaper loans, Romney and Obama will feel pressed to come up with actual policies that might bring the nation’s unfunded liabilities to less-than-Greek levels.

The Supreme Court issued a summary opinion overturning Montana’s restrictions on corporate spending on electoral speech. The court did so 5–4 along the lines you might expect. As John Samples points out in this short video, the court’s opinion in Citizens United that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation” is not as settled as fans of freewheeling political communication might hope.

To overturn Citizens United, lawmakers might pursue a Constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to prohibit funding of electoral speech. But as Samples notes, a number of proposed amendments go far beyond banning corporate political speech and simply outlaw all private spending to influence elections. One should presume that such a ban could include Sharpies and posterboard for your standard-issue homemade political sign or the purchase of certain Shepard Fairey prints.

Today Politico Arena asks:

Are conservatives hypocritical to argue for eliminating campaign finance restrictions and disclosure requirements, which they once supported, or does their argument regarding donor harassment carry some weight?

Roger Pilon made some good points about conservative donors facing harassment, which might explain shifts in conservative sentiment on the issue. In my own response, I tried to remind readers that people on all sides of controversial issues have reason for concern about disclosure and intimidation:

There are good arguments for disclosure, especially with regard to contributions to candidates: Let the voters see who might be influencing a candidate. Of course, there are lots of people who have influence without being major donors — mayors and governors, leaders of voting blocs and interest groups, editors and publishers. Maybe they should all be identified, too.

The case for disclosure is even weaker when it comes to supporters and opponents of initiatives. In that case there is no officeholder to influence. Once the law is passed, it’s the law. And we do know that there have been instances of bullying and intimidation based on donor disclosure. In the past both the NAACP and the Socialist Workers Party have petitioned to protect their donors from publicity and resulting abuse. Many businessmen shied away from supporting term-limits efforts to avoid offending incumbent officeholders. A couple of decades ago, people didn’t want to be known as contributors to gay-rights causes; these days, it may be worse to be known as an opponent of gay rights. In either case, disclosure has a chilling effect on political involvement.

The problems with disclosure may be greater today because of the increased polarization of politics and the role of the internet in both encouraging polarization and making it easy to identify and expose donors. Disclosure is a complex issue, but we should not ignore the chilling effect it can have on political engagement.