The intarwebs are full of political plans/promises to do this.
The papers are full of politicos plans/promises to do this.
The radio is full of talk shows on plans/promises to do this.
The TV is full of speeches regarding plans promises to do this.
Libraries are full of historical plans/promises to do this.
All of these are accompanied by internal logical arguments to show they are the best/only way to accomplish this. Spending a week lying to yourself about how hard this is, is laughable. Get off your butt and do the work. Your teacher isn't looking for truth with a capital 'T,' she's looking for solid work and an approach that's defensible.
This.
*sigh* let's give
this idiot this ATOT member a start:
Depends on how you want to approach this: does the government need to step in to encourage financial growth in the commercial sector, or is it stifling its growth and need to get out of its way? (Big picture)
Either way, the government would need to do two things; cut down spending, and increase taxes. You just need to allocate where/how much the cuts and tax increases are coming from and argue why these cuts/increases will minimize the decline of, and encourage future growth in, the economy. (Small picture)
Btw, since this is at the state level, you first would need to clearly state where the federal/state boundaries lie in what they can/cannot do and go from there.
Another - easier - way would be to see what other states are doing in terms of regulations; what states are doing better/worse, and is there a regulatory correlation for that effect? What states have been in similar shape in the last 20 years, and how did they do? If they did better, what kind of regulatory changes took place? Conversely, if they did worse, what mistakes did they make?
OP is a stupid kid. Goddamn this is an easy assignment. Just requires a bit of research.