 An economy is not a collection of industries. An economy is what we do to earn a living, and what we get for our time and efforts. Our economy's working tool is agreements between people. It is contracts. A contract is as simple as buying an ice cream cone or as complex as government hiring its management of money through the Federal Reserve. The business of government is accomplished through hiring elected officers to perform the functions of their offices for the purposes we set upon our government. All such agreements are within the meaning of an economy. At the founding of our nation, we had just revolted from the authority of England, largely over inappropriately taxing our commerce. Our constitution reflects an enormous distrust of the colonists when it came to government taxing. It limited the government to a per capita tax, a tax that was the same for everyone. Our new government was directly told to keep its fingers out of commerce, that it was not to interfere with the obligations of contract. Putting tax obligation on sales contracts is open violation of this limit placed on government. Putting tax collection duties on employers is an open violation. Putting tax paying obligations on employees is an open and obvious violation. This can be seen in terms of putting your hand in your neighbor's pocket to buy him things he really doesn't want, or to buy for other people who need them more than he does. If any citizen would try to do that, he or she would rightfully be prosecuted as a thief. The idea that government will do these same acts in our name is not one of representation. It is leadership acting as a sovereign government. We the people own this government. Whenever and wherever we come to agreement, we can issue our mandate to those who are entitled to their offices only as they serve us. And so we gather as a people and mandate that all commercial interference with contract stops at the end of the year. The funds collected from tax and commerce cease immediately on the pain of pulling the plug on every congressman who votes otherwise. Have we solved our government's financial problem? Or have we just made it worse by unfunding the entire bureaucracy through a financial revolution against our own government? It is like telling someone who only has skills as a thief that he is no longer going to be able to steal for a living. That may look like a cure to his victims, but is almost certain to fail. He does not have any alternative to utter poverty, but will return to thieving. When our leadership is faced with the ugly truth that they have been acting as thieves robbing the people they are elected to support, they will face a life challenge. Unless we provide something else that they can and should be doing for us and a reasonable way to continue the government, then our efforts will fail us. It is not within our power to simply unfund our government. One way or another the criminal behavior is going to continue until we manage something different. Resolution begins with addressing wasteful spending. Action should interrupt spending in ways that give our leaders a direction for their actions. We find expenditures that should not have been authorized and direct that they cease. Agreement can be sought to terminate wasteful spending. Agreements can be sought to assure that any public dollars that get spent on the bureaucracy serve the public, and that programs that serve only the few be funded by voluntary dollars by what people are willing to provide. For the first, we can come together based on not spending our taxes where we get nothing back. That is pretty simple. Anywhere we do not receive value, terminating the effort is a program. There will be no loss as to representing us if it just goes away. Where there is some benefit to us, then we can mandate that the benefit be the basis for funding, and the rest of the organization, those who do not provide any public goods or services, no longer be funded with our tax dollars. Where some people get benefit and others do not, the program denies representation. It needs to be unfunded as to public dollars, but open to donations. If this is a program that the people support, then people can support it. If not, then there is no way to represent the people in funding it. I note that this is only a partial solution. Gathering the people is work for us, and gaining the agreement to interrupt a funding stream is going to take time and effort by a large number of people. It is not a solution to the larger problem of government that is convinced that it is sovereign. Changing one funding at a time may be worth it for some of the larger expenditures, but it is not a practical solution by itself. We need to change the way funding is authorized in Congress, so that our leaders start to serve our purposes. The challenge is one of magnitude. Quite simply, the reality is that we have over a century of misrepresentative funding that is going to continue until it is interrupted. How can we, as owner of our government, even begin to address this in some meaningful way? The answer is that we are the owner. We don't have to run the government, we pay people to do that for us. We are the authority that can direct our leadership to do what we can agree that they do. Whenever and wherever we are in agreement, we are the nation to which all our hired help will answer. The answer is that we put responsibility for managing spending on our congressional representatives. The direction of one good answer is that we apply an owner management to set our purpose upon our elected public employees. We can, wherever we are in agreement, assign responsibilities. We want them to manage on our behalf. Our action is exception management. It is not standing over them assuring that they do their management, but telling them the results they are to gain and assuring that they have all that they really need to get it done. I am a performance engineer, someone who provides technical management support to those who have things to accomplish through managing others. We have good knowledge of how this is accomplished, and it is technical side of management. We define success for our representatives in terms of delivering value to us. It is tying the congressional resourcing of government efforts to the delivery of value to us. This supports their management for our benefit. One obvious direction is to insist that every spending law they pass has a product that we can value. If there is no difference between success and failure in serving people, then it is not to be funded. This supports congressional management. If the effort is funded, but the result is not delivered, then it is not to be funded in following years. They are not to fund failures to perform, no matter how wonderful the promises may seem. With this, we have an awesome new tool from exception management. It is monitoring performance to assure that those who are in Congress do their job. We do this by monitoring the management itself. We demand publication of each expenditure, and the productive output that is associated with it. We demand that success or failure to deliver that result also be published for all these expenditures. We see what is spent in our name, and we see what we get for it. The term for this is management feedback. It is delivery of the minimum amount of information that is needed by we the people to see that our direction is being followed. Our efforts can only create a mandate where we come to agreement among ourselves. Can we find a way to agree that our congressional representatives do financial management in our name? It sounds simple, like simply unfunding efforts that do not serve the public. But it is not at all simple in the existing political environment. It will only happen if we the people acting as the owner of our nation mandate that change. The corruption has been their way of life, a requirement for being a part of political aristocracy. Nationalist leaders will be like the thief who has no skills to earn a living except by what they have always done. We must realize how difficult a step this is for those who are in the current tax and spend environment. They are aligned with a systematic approach that is non-representative. This is a change in process to the very nature for operation of Congress, and it is not going to be an easy change. This will threaten to rip up the traditional funding base for election from our leadership. The current corruption is systemic, and cutting inappropriate funding is just a starting point. The entire business of selling votes on legislation will be remarkably changed, and it will be in full sight of the public that can take offense when their leaders are wheeling and dealing with our money. So what happens when we do something like this? Every performance professional knows that change comes with a cost, and we want the cost to be less than the benefit we receive. This corrective direction addresses ongoing legislative business as waste, as spending without a defined and valued result. Our mandated change must be a way to define a true improvement, an effort that will eliminate a great deal of wasteful spending. Establishing exception management over Congress will do this, but Congress will still continue receiving the huge influx of funding from the government's illegal interference in commerce. It will have government accumulating money, which it is unprepared to do. Can we agree to have government pay down our national debt? Can we agree to have our government invest in our economy instead of leaching profits from it? Can we agree to reduce or eliminate the inappropriate interference with contract with the aim of setting our federal government back onto a good financial base? These are the sort of questions that we should be addressing in the future, but they will only be questions if we are able to establish financial management for our nation. Instead of supporting commerce as would be required for gaining the benefit of liberty, our government has decided that the United States citizens need to work for their government. They have limited our liberty, interrupted our prosperity, and are sucking the very life out of our commerce from our economy in direct violation of the limitation placed in our constitution to make it even worse they claim to have done it in our name. We have potential for drawing people together to mandate change. We can address some of the worst public expenditures directly. For a more general application, we have to address changing the way Congress works in terms of establishing financial management. This will not happen in the current political environment. It will require a public mandate to change the way Congress has chosen to perform its job. It will involve disrupting the current corruption that has supported a leadership aristocracy that lives off the earnings of the common people. Our mandate should promote a leadership that serves the people.