 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 effort. 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 inappropriate taxing of our commerce. Our constitution reflects the 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 some tax obligations on sales contracts is open violation of this limit 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 be rightfully 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 our commercial interference with contract stops at the end of the year. The funds collecting from taxing commerce cease immediately on 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, 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 good like a cure to his victims, but it is almost certain to fail. He does not have any alternative to utter poverty and will return to thieving. When leadership is faced with the ugly truth that they are acting as thieves robbing the people they were elected to support, they will face a like 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 else. 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 directed they cease. Agreements can be sought to terminate wasteful spending. Agreements can be sought to assure public dollars that get spent on the bureaucracy serve the public. And that programs that serve only the few are funded by voluntary dollars, by what people are willing to provide. For the first, we can come together based on not spending our taxes when we get nothing back. That is pretty simple. To where we do not receive value, terminating the effort is appropriate. 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 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 the people can support it. If not, then there is no way to represent the people in funding it. I know that this is only a partial solution. Gathering the people is work and gaining the agreement to interrupt the 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 a sovereign. Changing one funding at a time may be worth it for some of the larger expenditures, but it is not practical as a 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, that we have over a century of misrepresentative funding that is going to continue until it is interrupted. How can we, as owners 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 are hired to help all answer. The answer is that we put responsibility for managing spending on our congressional representatives. That is a bold direction. The question is how we might do that. How do we assure that they act as our agents? The direction of one good answer is that we apply our owner management to set our purpose upon our elected public employees. We can, whenever 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 they 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 or failure in serving the people, then it is not to be funded. This supports congressional management, even as the effort is funded, but the results are 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 for 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 it is associated with it. We demand that the success or failure to deliver that result is also published for all prior 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 mandate where we can 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 part of a political aristocracy. Established leaders will be like the thief who has no skills to earn a living except by what they have always been doing. 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 system systemic 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 easy as a change. This will threaten to rip the traditional funding base for election from our leadership. The current corruption is systemic and cutting inappropriate funding is just the 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 money tax from the public. So what happens when we do something like this? We know that every 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 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 today. Instead of supporting commerce as would be required for gaining the benefits 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 of our economy in direct violation of limitations 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 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 our Congress has chosen to perform its job. It will involve disrupting our current corruption that has been supported by a leadership aristocracy that lives off earnings of the common people. Our mandate should promote leadership that serves the people.