Having accountability places an importance to the fact that government has certain obligations, placed by the people, to follow. The government will be held accountable based on how it follows the obligations placed by its citizens. Without accountability, the government can do as it pleases.

I think the republican politicians tend to be for “comical” military spending, but that doesn’t mean ordinary republicans are. If my conclusions aren’t as obvious as I think, then I would like to hear an argument against them.

(Republican politicians do not appropriately represent republican citizens, and the same can be said about democrat politicians. They are a bunch of jerks returning favors to their “benefactors.”)

The Fed isn’t technically part of the government, but it is highly protected, secretive, unaccountable, etc. The fact that the money “can’t be accounted for” doesn’t mean it was wasted or lost. It just means that what was done with the money is a secret. It’s “off the books.” By the same reasoning the unaccounted military spending isn’t merely “lost” into oblivion. It could be wasted, but some of the money might just be off the books.

And given the rise of China, it’s not unexpected that the Old Guard will do what it can to project power to deter the rising superpower from taking the lead. Arguably counter-productive in the long run, but that’s what nations have done for centuries, sadly. And it’s the times of transition from one superpower to the next that can be the most fractious. Hopefully we’re all wise enough to avoid any outright conflict during the transition – although I’m perpetually reminded of humanity’s general lack of wisdom.

Also, military spending isn’t necessarily non-partisan; conservatives typically harbour very strong feelings about the military. In fact, it’s one of the only aspects of government that conservatives love to throw money at. Democrats might well agree the military budget could with with some trimming, but Republicans are unlikely to be easily swayed. That’ll make it (another) nasty partisan battle.

But if it can be cut, it’ll be good for everyone. It might even slow the military build-up going on in China, as it won’t feel as threatened. Then that money could go towards building closer economic ties, which will obviate the need for conflict. At least, that’s the Clinton-esque theory I subscribe to.

On waste, of course eliminating waste would be great. All governments tend to become increasingly burdened with waste and inefficiency, and it’s always a trial to keep these in check.

That said, I’m not convinced there really is $9 trillion unaccounted for, as is suggested in that report. The US budget spending in 2010 amounts to 3.7 trillion, so that would be over twice the entire US budget that has disappeared. I’d need more evidence than the grumblings of Republican to convince me of a fiscal debacle of that scale. Also, the Fed isn’t strictly government spending – so if its balance sheet expands by $1 trillion, that doesn’t mean the government has ‘spent’ $1 trillion. Don’t know what what it means.

Anyway. I’d vote for your measures. But a) I’m Australian, and b) I’m partisan (centre-left by Australian standards, although probably a radical liberal by American standards).