Eh, I claim no infallibility for myself. The ideas I floated are scattershot. They might not be the best solutions. But I think we ought to be talking about what's possible, and what the consequences would be of adopting some of the possibilities. I see no reason to constrain the list to the merely politically easy. Following the path of least resistance is what got us to this point. Ending criminalization of behaviors which only affect the self or which occur between consenting adults without harming anyone else *will* reduce congestion in the court system. Congestion is a major problem - it increases the cost burden of the justice system and extends the time it takes to resolve practically everything. "Getting rid of lobbyists" doesn't mean preventing citizens from petitioning their government. It only prevents those petitioning citizens from paying for the privilege. Petition all you want, but if you do, you can't funnel money to the politicians you're petitioning. That would end lobbying as we know it. The tax code already is slanted towards exporting jobs. I doubt simplifying it would make things worse than they are. You're mistaken about the nature of budget legislation, at least at the Federal level (I'm not sure about states). These enormous instruments are often the vehicles of policy, not merely funding decisions. Earmarks are "not necessarily bad." But they are nearly always undebated. They're like barnacles on a ship, often having no relationship to the purpose of legislation to which they are attached. They add to the morass of complexity of the legal code. Most would never pass if they were debated on their own merits - and they should be debated on their own merits. So, Degsme, what are your ideas? It's easy to criticize, a bit harder to come up with solutions.