Probably because I majored in English and philosophy, President Trump and the plight of the migrant children separated from their families has reminded me of the satirical political essay written by Jonathan Swift in 1729, “A Modest Proposal, For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick.”

In the essay – usually referred to as “A Modest Proposal” – the narrator makes an elaborate argument in gruesome detail that impoverished Irish families should sell their young children to rich English people – as food – to improve their lot in society.

“I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout,” Swift wrote, deadpan, in his provocative piece challenging England’s ruling elite to take notice of and responsibility for the soul-crushing poverty and destitution of Irish families.

As far as I know, President Trump hasn’t made any commercial overtures about the 20,000 migrant kids his administration wants to store on military bases, but let’s face it: If the president can make a few more bucks for his “base” or the emanations of the penumbra of the Trump empire, he will, and regardless of their actual fate, we will hear only good things from the commander in chief.

As with his latest Supreme Court nominee and the many who’ve gone in and out of his administration, President Trump will dispense with the migrant children separated from their parents in a grand pronouncement, before moving on to his next gig.

“These kids never had it so good,” I can hear Trump telling Sean Hannity as clips of kids in sharply pressed uniforms, shiny black shoes and cropped hair are shown marching carrying U.S. flags. His words will have the same degree of meaning as so much of what else the president says, like “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.”

While we await the next presidential tweet, here is “a modest proposal” of another kind.

It is a melancholy object to those who Google, tweet or travel in the world, when they see in the United States the presidency, corporate boards, Congress and investment banks, crowded with the male sex, each followed by three, four or six ex-wives, importuning every deity for an alms.

These mothers are forced to employ all their time working for less while caring for more. Parents, grandparents and helpless infants remain their charge; the children, as they grow up, either live at home for want of work that earns a livable wage, or leave their dear native country to fight wars or chase money and power. The work of caring for others is non-stop, the tasks relentless.

Mother’s biggest little helper in this fast-paced era is, of course, her phone. Swiftly switching applications enables shopping, banking, practicing law, making and breaking appointments, advising kids what is and is not acceptable to wear or post on social media or put on a resume. Memories are captured with phones and business is conducted. It’s a flashlight, calculator and calendar. With her phone a woman can hail rides, pay the dog sitter and buy and sell stocks free of the middle-mansplainer. The potential is limitless. Harnessing the power of smartphones and the insatiable appetite for all things raunchy – and monetizing it – is the challenge for every busy red-blooded capitalist American woman.

Marketed just right, sexting – that cute portmanteau word with a bad rap – could be the next Cuisinart for today’s working woman in a committed relationship short on alone time. Sure, there is the little problem of the USA Patriot Act and spying by Uncle Sam and Vladimir Putin (that could be embarrassing). And obviously, sexting is not for kids.

For the conservatives, though, high-speed digital relations are non-carnal and can be fiscally prudent. For the germophobes, the delivery of sex by phone is duly antiseptic. Liberals with iPhones can get artsy and use their Photoshop talents. Gay and lesbian couples have equal rights until slowed down by the big telecoms that had net neutrality gutted. For exhausted, underpaid working mothers, sexting could be one more time-saving, family-friendly application.

Prostitution is another service in high demand, though forced in the shadows by the government. Why suffer pimps when, with the right commercial sexting platform, appointments could be scheduled online and services and clients publicly reviewed? Think of the tax revenue. It could be used to build roads and bridges.

In the Trump administration’s dog-eat-dog, deregulation-oriented world of private prisons, drilling for oil in pristine waters, spewing carbon in the air and allowing every demented angry young guy who wants an assault weapon to have one, women should at least be free to sell what the market demands, using the latest technology, without big-government interference, don’t you think?

Cynthia Dill is a civil rights lawyer and former state senator. She may be contacted at her website:

www.dillesquire.com