I can see the point of the idea. We need more carriers for the presence/power projection mission. Building up the CVN force is not realistic in the near-term; even getting back to 12 is ambitious. NNSY can only build them so quickly, and $12bn a pop means you can't accelerate the build much. America-class, on the other hand, are already under construction, with a finalized design, and can be built at conventional yards. Building more of them - with no or minor tweaks - would be a relatively quick, low-programmatic risk way to build up the carrier force. Making a STOVL carrier design CATOBAR-capable is way more complicated and expensive than it looks on the face of it - the Brits found that out when they considered adding cat/AG to Prince of Wales. It's an 80% solution, but that's much better than disappearing down the decades-long rabbit hole of design studies, program reviews, over budget/behind schedule. Short version: if we want light carriers, we have a perfectly good light carrier design in service now, and for God's sake let's stop reinventing the wheel.
So: redesignate the Flight 0 LHA-6 (America and Tripoli) as CVAs. Build 3-4 more of them, which would put a couple on each coast and one or two for FDNF. Their builds can be sequenced in between LHAs. Maybe quicker if NASSCO can build them as well as HII. Stand up a light/strike/whatever CVW for each coast, with two 10-a/c F-35B VFAs and a four-'Hawk HSC/M for each boat.
Of course, this is all fantasy unless and until Congress repeals the Budget Control Act and we get a massive expansion of the shipbuilding and aircraft procurement budget. But I think if the end goal is more hulls with dedicated fixed-wing strike capability, this is a hell of a lot more realistic than any other proposals out there.
