Only the last two items on your list (protecting privacy, ending the war on drug users) remotely qualify as change. Everything else qualifies as "funneling more

Only the last two items on your list (protecting privacy, ending the war on drug users) remotely qualify as change. Everything else qualifies as "funneling more money into existing programs". Consider the most establishment presidential candidate in the race right now. Would Hillary Clinton even use different words to describe her policy proposals? I could imagine policy details that might count as change, but you don't seem to be advocating those. E.g., if you wanted to provide affordable education by replacing teachers with Khan Academy, or cut infrastructure costs down to everywhere-else-in-the-world levels [1] by breaking the back of public employee unions or other such reforms. Are you advocating big change like this? [1] Delhi Metro Phase 2, 77 miles of track and 85 stations cost Delhi $2.9B and 3 years. Hudson Yards, 1 mile of track and 1 station, cost NYC $2.5B and 9 years.