Join the new world

Yesterday, I wrote at length (perhaps too much length) about my views concerning eUS policy for maintaining a strong military and my views on tax policy. Today, I will discuss my beliefs about post-war policy regarding other important issues: infrastructure placement; new player retention, and government transparency. This list may not exhaust the issues that will come before Congress, but they are among the most important.


Infrastructure Placement

Decisions about the placement of infrastructure (hospitals and defense systems) are among the least understood in eRepublic. Aspirants for Congress often promise to seek hospitals for their states, regardless of that state's population. Once they have been in Congress for a time, those promises are invariably forgotten. There is good reason for that forgetfulness.


Infrastructure is an element of military defense. Hospitals, especially Q5 hospitals, attract residents to the regions that have them. The height of a region's defensive wall is directly proportional to the size of the region's population. Q5 defense systems increase the height of the wall by 50%--with a DS, each resident is worth 1.5 times his original worth in determining the height of the wall. Hospitals and defense systems are also very expensive, costing 200-300 Gold each. If a region hosting one or both is conquered, the hospital and DS is immediately destroyed. This, of course, represents a major loss to the entire nation.


A quick review of early Congressional debates on infrastructure policy (in the Library of Congress) reveals that their view of infrastructure saw it solely as useful for strategic defense. Hospitals of varying qualities were placed in most states and Q5 hospitals were placed first in Florida in the belief that that state was vulnerable to attack. A Q5 was given to New Jersey for the same reason. Then, just before the war, a O5 went to Kansas in the belief that it would be far enough inland to be shielded from attack.


The war taught us several lessons about infrastructure. Except for Kansas, our Q5 hospitals and defense systems were not in high resource regions. At the depths of the war, when we possessed only Florida, we had access to no high production regions. This was a disastrous situation for our economy. Likewise, we had lost most of our companies located in such states as California and Texas. Moreover, Q5 hospitals and DS did not, in themselves have much effect on the outcomes of battles. Kansas, with a relatively small population, and New Jersey fell on the first attack.


So, we now have evidence suggesting that Q5 hospitals and defense systems must work together if they are to be useful. A Q5 hospital will attract population to a state. A DS is useless unless a state has a high population (certainly exceeding 1,000 and possibly more). We need to consider the contribution of a state to our economy (does it have high productivity resources and a large number of companies). We must limit the placement of hospitals to a number consistent with our mobile population. Given the population of Florida right now, we may assume that our "mobile population" is about 10,000. That has created an almost impregnable fortress, requiring massive quantities of Gold even to launch an attack on it.


If the population willing to move to a region with a Q5 hospital approaches 10,000, it might be reasonable to place a Q5 hospital and defense system in two states, in the hope that each might reach a population of 5,000. The states must possess high resources and a relatively large number of companies. It would be helpful if the states were also strategically important. Currently, two states best meet these criteria: California and Texas. As our population grows, we can add infrastructure to more states meeting these criteria.


Retaining New Citizens

Attracting and retaining new citizens is as important to our future as is maintaining a strong military. The eUS has 51 regions to protect against conquest. As noted above, the best way to protect them is to populate these regions. A large population is also critical to our military strength. More fighters equals more damage.


I, therefore, strongly support all programs aimed at supporting new players. Mentoring--through the Department of Education, the political parties or eNOVA--are perhaps the most effective means of helping new players. Experienced players, working one-on-one with new players, can provide them with the basic knowledge needed for survival at the beginning of their elives and for success throughout those lives. I also support sufficient funding for Meals on Wheels and the other programs we have created to help new citizens through the first week or two of their elives.

These programs have necessarily been weakened by the overwhelming fiscal demands of defending ourselves during the war. But resuscitating these programs must be one of our post-war priorities.


Transparency

Since my first campaign, I have wanted to reduce the unnecessary secrecy of Congressional deliberations. My convictions about this issue have only been strengthened as I have seen Congress excluded from basic information, such as revenue and expenditure estimates, on the grounds of national security. In fact, I have discovered that almost anything can be placed under a "national security" blanket and hidden from Congress and/or the public, if Congress or the Administration so wishes.


For now, I am not planning to confront this issue in Congressional deliberations. Instead, I hope that the previously described expansion of my Congressional office can help remedy this problem. Within the bounds of national security, I hope to present explanations of some of the game mechanics and US government procedures that shape our actions. This is not and cannot be a total solution to the problem of insufficient transparency. But it can disseminate information not widely available to citizens.