[flagged]
replies(7):
You're assuming you'd get something truthful or informative out of that process, when in reality you'll get the opposite due to the inherit (dis)incentives.
If it meaningfully impacts the public, the public should have input. The input doesn't need to be binding, but it needs to be taken into consideration. Representative government is not a once-every-four-years exercise, nor is it something that should only be accessible to the mega-rich.
There's an entire process for this among many rule-making agencies in every level of government, across the world. It serves as, at minimum, a public record of objections and concerns, and at times that public feedback identifies a problem that the rule-drafters failed to address.
It doesn't, and can't prevent outright malice by a capricious autocrat, who only works to make his backroom friends happy. But it does make a public record of that malice.
If there's no loose budget, there's far fewer things that go into the black budgets.
Because obviously nothing can ever change, so don't even try. How silly of of you citizen, to imagine even trying to fix corruption.
Fixing corruption involves people refusing to put up with corruption.
The entire reason with we have say, double-entry book-keeping, is because it makes it substantially more difficult to engage in corrupt activities without producing a record which can be used to hold people to account for their actions.
People declare "I think it's corruption" on the internet all the time with absolutely no evidence, which itself is indistinguishable to corruption in the first place (since the favorite tool of dictators and autocrats is to "discover" corruption in their political opponents when it is convenient to do so).