This is a great turn out, of strong minded individuals. I appreciate the mature, objective responses. Some say that they would keep it the same way, if we could change a few things. Others have pointed out the obvious flaws and have accepted responsibility of our fails. Let me summarize the failures as I propose a solutions to them.

The first thing to address is the scope of the federal government's role. The founding fathers wanted states to govern themselves, and have a binding contract to cooperate in the common interest of self defense; this is known as confederation. Since then, the system has mutated, due to laws being passed and power being grabbed on a federal level to the point where they now see the need to govern every aspect of our lives on a national scale. When the federal government has more control and the states must obey every rule, this is federation. A federation is stronger in regards to national security but undermines personal liberty and state diversity. On the reverse side, confederation gives the states more power to govern and this can be catered to meet the specific needs of the states' constituents. We need to get back to a confederation system. The federal government should be limited in its power to over see only things that need to be addressed on a national level such as the common defense, interstate t***sportation, monetary exchange protocol (making of common currency), and maybe a few other areas where a common need should be uniformed. States would retain the power to determine how they conduct education, welfare, prohibitions, mandates, ect.

The economic system should be a lightly regulated free market. Government should have absolutely no influence on how the economy is doing. There should be a federal flat tax rate that is written in stone that is observed by both businesses and individuals. Regulation should be limited to forcing a business to provide a safe work place that is environmentally friendly and fair compensation and schedule for workers.

The biggest problem with our current political system is that it is infested with politicians. The second biggest problem with it is that it is a two party system. It is human nature to assume a group identity and when there is only two parties to choose from, people adopt one party or another based on their greatest concern, then adopt the remaining rhetoric of that group to become fully assimilated. This prevents individual thinking, and makes a person less objective. Another problem with a two party system is that we often find ourselves v****g for the lesser of two evils. This is how we elect despicable individuals into positions of power. So we have career politicians elected into power by a two party system. Would it not be better for a draft into congress? My proposal is just that; every two years, a social security number is randomly selected for one individual living within a congressional district. That person is being called to serve his or her country as a congressman until relieved by their replacement two years later. There would be about 3 months of learning the system and being brought up on all the issues prior to them assuming the post. They would of course have an advisor that is knowledgeable and can guide them throughout their two year career. The Senators would be appointed by the governor of their respective states. There would be no more lobbyist as we know them. Instead, groups of citizens who wish to pass legislation would address the legislative branches and let the house and senate agree or disagree. Opposed parties would also be allowed to represent their side during those same hearings. Supreme court justices would have a term of 6 years, at which point they would have to be replaced and never be eligible to regain that post. This appointment would still come from the president of the United States. The president would be elected by the people by common v**e, not e*******l college, still every 4 years. Everyone who has a petition with 40,000 names or more (just a number) and meets the other criteria to be president is eligible to run for president. There is no campaign funds to split between two parties, as it would no longer be a two party system. The e******n funds would instead be used for t***sportation, boarding, and feeding the candidate and his staff during the campaigning process. All candidates would receive equal airtime and exposure for events sponsored by the campaign funds. Each group would have to financially support their candidate as far as advertising, additional exposure, ect. Each round of the v****g would cut the remaining number of candidates in half, until such point that one candidate has 50.1% of the popular v**e or more.

Finally, I will address the budget. The problems with our budget is that we are trying to find areas to take away from, and at least some people have interest in every expenditure. It is hard to make the cuts. What if we went to it from a different angle, and started the budget all over? Don't determine what to cut, but determine what needs funding. And don't do it by dollar amounts, as that does not always coincide with what dollars are available; do it by budget percentages instead, and each year, each funded area will learn what their dollar amount is based on revenue of the preceding year. If they find themselves with a surplus, that area would do wise for saving to meet shortfalls in the future. For instance, defense spending gets 44.31% of the budget, infrastructure gets 3.1% of the budget, federal administration gets 2.55%, debt payment gets 12.3% ect. When 100% is reached, there is no more funding available, period. US postal service, social security, and other services would be discontinued and private sector businesses would meet that need. If a congress fails to meet a fiscal budget, all members of the congress should receive no pay, until such time as a budget is agreed upon.

Just some food for thought. Any ideas?