Do you have an actual answer to that question? Because it seems like a bad plan to spend trillions of dollars on something if you can't even show that it works.
If by "me" you mean "the voters" then yes of course. What was that Russian proverb Ronald Regan was always so found of? Trust but verify? The verify part is very, very important.
Blind trust with no accountability is totally insane. There has to come a point, during the lives of the people who have to be held accountable for what they've done, that what they've done comes to light. Or how do you propose we hold them to account?
You pick representatives, and they are shown the effectiveness of programs, because they are the ones who vote for the programs.
This isn't about you, or me, or any individual, that's not how this country works. Some things that are not very popular are absolutely necessary nonetheless.
> You pick representatives, and they are shown the effectiveness of programs, because they are the ones who vote for the programs.
They aren't always given the information either. Recall Diane Feinstein being quite displeased about being lied to recently. And we still have to elect "them" on the basis of something. By what process is a corrupt politician supposed to be held accountable if the fact of their corruption is a government secret?
> Some things that are not very popular are absolutely necessary nonetheless.
How do you propose to ensure that only the "absolutely necessary" things are occurring?
If you know about it, it's not secret, so you're in a losing position of being unable to come up with an example of corruption the public doesn't know about.
Don't be silly. All of the corruption we know about now is an example of corruption the public didn't know about before it was published. The problem is we need to learn about it while there is still time to do something about it. We can't stop it if we only learn about it after it has already happened.
