With budget control, junta turns check-and-balance into checkmate

Submarines? Tanks? Propaganda budget? Rubber subsidies? Here’s a crazy idea. How about having parties make their spending policies part of their campaign platform, and then people can vote for the party whose plans they like best? A rhetorical question, I know, but how many of these people who are going to be deciding what spending is appropriate and what isn’t were voted into office and represent the public and its interests (rather than unaccountable interests)?
debate101
So basically, they have the authority to unilaterally overrule both the executive and legislative branches of government on budgetary legislation. This isn’t a democratic check & balance – it’s checkmate.
Srikcir
What makes you think the last elected government was representing the public’s interest? They were willing to promise unsustainable policies to get themselves elected, and then acted in the interest of the criminal that paid, directed and owned them. 
halloween
They were elected and could be removed by the voters if they were not happy. The junta can only be removed by force.
Tell me, whose interests do you think the junta represent?
Becker
They were elected by offering unsustainable electoral bribes, just what this measure is intended to stop. 
The electorate believed their false campaign promises, that the rice scam was sustainable, that all schoolchildren would be given tablets to improve their education, and that they would be better off after the minimum wage was raised, among others. Would they have done the same if prior cost/benefit analysis had proved them to be unworkable?
I fully support financial analysis of campaign promises and government policy to prevent this election buying waste of public resources. It happens in Australia and it works well.
halloween
Thaivisa