Convicted politicians, walmart and china's weaponized economy-two of two

A rough application of short term, medium term and long term intelligence on Walmart, Amazon and China:
Convicted politicians are included just as a reminder of the need for reform in order to make sure that the concepts in China's Weaponized economy are embodied in a state constitutional convention to stem the abuses of congress-something that must be driven by the public at large since state politicians are as corrupt for the same reasons as other politicians and long to move from their states to a higher, more protected position from which to be self agrandizing.
What if, for example, the government agreed with Walmart and held that, say in certain industries considered crucial at least 50% of sales had to come from American made products?  Would that generate jobs as Walmart suggests?  Could the same be done for Internet sales.  This type of law would put the burden on those companies to come up with ways to solve the problem.
Similar opportunities could be encouraged for including smaller shops in conjunction with the service type businesses that Walmart has put forward.  How this could be done with Amazon or other internet companies is harder to imagine and neither would accomplish the corner store concept so crucial to our way of life.
This isn't just me. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/unemployment-number-one-problem_n_4807365.html.  If unemployment is American's biggest problem, and if it is the result of China's weaponized economy and out of control technologies (Centralization (Walmart for example) and the Internet (Amazon for example); why the heck, if not for corruption, is our government more focused on gun control than this issue?  Even the minimum wage is bandied about without any concern for anything other than the immediate term.  It is possible that the medium and long term issues would favor either raising or not raising, but the question to me is not whether gun control, birth control, wage control or business control is the issue, the question, is, rather, whether in addition to the application of intelligence we should not also require that all laws be compared to other issues of the day in order to have them evaluated.
While this is implied in determining the effects, perhaps it should be explicit.
For example:
Congress can pass any law it could have previously passed, but all such laws must be: 1) tested for short term effects (i.e. is it intelligent in the short term); 2) tested for medium term effects, 3) tested for long term effects; and such test must compare it to the primary issues before congress which should be defined and updated as each law is passed; for example: a) the effect on unemployment (in each term); b) the effect on the ultimate extinction of the human race (not very important to congress, but maybe important to someone); c) the effect on the balance of power; d) the effect on the economy; etc.  Perhaps we should say what effect it has on the top 20 things, but that is another matter.  Remember that this is not to control legislation, but just so that people look at things before they do them.   My favorite is the war in Afghanistan, a complete waste of money that essentially bankrupted the country (finishing what China started) which is just baffling until you look at it as a purely emotional response by a country poorly led not only by a weak, corrupt congress, but a president largely ignorant of historical perspective (at least in retrospect).
But look, I've gone too far to cover the issue de jur so I must stop here for the time being.