Accountability in government is a no-brainer.

Elected officials should be held accountable for what they say, how they vote, what they do, and what they fail to do.

Additionally, the money spent by government should be accounted for, with online reports of purchases and expenditures, bolstered by audits and reviews that ensure public money has been spent efficiently and for the intended purposes.

These days, federal officials are working hard to see that doesn’t happen.

One huge example is the oversight provisions in the $2.2 trillion relief package that Congress pushed through in late March.

President Donald Trump has made clear that he thinks he can spend the money as he wants. In a White House statement March 27, he announced that he rejected the law’s provision calling for oversight by the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee.

To make his point clear, he fired Glenn Fine, the inspector general of the Pentagon, who had been tapped to lead the oversight committee.

Trump claimed Fine was too partisan. FactCheck.org reports that Fine worked eight years in Republican President George Bush’s administration, as well as in the administrations of Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Here’s how Trump’s former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis described Fine: “Mr. Fine is a public servant in the finest tradition of honest, competent governance,” he wrote in an email to Yahoo News. “In my years of extensive engagement with him as our Department of Defense’s acting Inspector General, he proved to be a leader whose personal and managerial integrity were always of the highest order.”

That likely was the real problem Trump had with Fine.

About the same time Trump fired Fine, he also fired Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general.

Trump said he fired Atkinson because he was “a disgrace” and that he had no confidence in him.

The president’s assessment stems from Atkinson’s handling of a whistleblower complaint regarding Trump’s decision to halt aid to Ukraine and evidence that the decision was tied efforts Trump made to get Ukraine’s top leaders to launch a criminal investigation into Trump’s political rival Joe Biden.

Trump claims the whistleblower’s account was inaccurate and that Atkinson should have buried it. A U.S. House investigation, led by Democrats, found that the whistleblower’s account was accurate and was sufficient reason to impeach the president.

The Senate, led by Republicans, shrugged, then dismissed the entire scandal without calling any witnesses.

Among most Republicans in Congress, the firings of inspectors general have received the same lackadaisical response.

And when Trump announced he would flout the provisions for oversight of $2.2 trillion in bailout funds, they shrugged some more.

And when reports arose that the White House was awarding huge pandemic-related contracts outside normal procedures, and without bids, congressional Republicans just kept shrugging.

This is known as blatantly bad government.

Oversight and audits are necessary. That goes double in times of disaster or crisis.

When government provides aid quickly, it can’t be as diligent in checking credentials and backgrounds. It’s the same with any endeavor: The faster you try to do something, the less care you can take.

So it’s crucial to have people and processes that provide quick checks upfront when possible, and, more importantly, that review and report who got money and why.

Honest government officials don’t just welcome such oversight, they demand it.

This country needs a plan.

Actually it needs lots of plans for how things are going to work if COVID-19 sticks around for months or more. What are we going to do with schools? With businesses? With elections?

Many of our elected officials, especially on the federal level, seem incapable of anticipating what’s ahead. They’re more focused on finding someone to blame for all the awful news.

We would be better served if they also looked ahead and planned for what’s to come.

That includes what we should do about elections.

Many are proposing that states adopt vote-by-mail systems for upcoming elections.

It’s a good idea and should be pursued, but not as the only option.

Expanding use of vote centers and advanced voting, for example, would help spread voting out, making it easier to comply with social distancing requirements and stay-at-home orders.

Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab refused to implement a state law that would have given counties those tools. Although legislators approved the use of vote centers about a year ago, Schwab said he didn’t have time to write the rules and ensure all counties were informed, trained and equipped.

That’s not a response that bodes well for Kansas in its current health crisis.

Of course, all might be fine by the Aug. 4 primary. People might not be worried about a coronavirus that has killed thousands and for which there is no vaccine.

Perhaps President Donald Trump was right when he advised Americans that COVID-19 would just “disappear” one day soon.

But it might be wise to have a plan in case that doesn’t happen, in case the experts are right that the coronavirus will be a threat at some level until we have a vaccine, which is probably about a year away.

The plan for how to hold elections should be taking shape now, and it should be ready to go by July 1, giving officials time to educate voters about changes.

Michael Smith, a political science professor at Emporia State University, has proposed going to voting by mail.

States such as Washington, Oregon, Utah and Colorado use mail systems, which involve mailing ballots automatically to registered voters. Many of those states also offer other options as well.

Given the present situation, Kansas might also want to set up lots of advance voting centers over at least a three-week period. Some should be near or at senior residential areas to facilitate voting among older voters.

Officials also need to figure out how to provide opportunities to vote for those whose housing situation is changing or will change because of job losses and other circumstances.

The plan could be adjustable, depending on the level of threat. Kansas voters would have more or fewer options, depending on the health advisories in effect, with specific elected and health officials making that determination.

The aim should be to ensure that every eligible citizen is able to vote safely and is encouraged to do so.

No Kansan should accept lack of time as an excuse for failing to develop and execute a plan.

Holding fair and secure elections is a vital function of government. Those unable to fulfill that basic job function should resign now.

In times such as these, real leaders don’t look for excuses or people to blame. They look for answers.

To help rural communities, Kansans and their lawmakers will need to do more than the inadequate broadband funds approved by the Legislature recently.

In Topeka and nationwide, voters and their elected officials need to understand that everyone benefits from collective investments in decent roads, internet service, educational opportunities and access to health care.

That’s part of the American experience dating back to the 1700s, when governments helped build roads to help farmers get produce to town. That didn’t just help farmers, it also helped city residents who wanted to eat.

The investments continued with huge federal subsidies to railroads in the 1800s, which opened new states and territories for settlement and commerce.

President Franklin Roosevelt’s programs brought electricity and telephone to rural America starting in the 1930s.

In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower launched the interstate highway program.

Better highways and rural electrification and telephone service helped not only small towns and rural America, they helped the country become a leading producer and exporter of food.

Such advancements and connections generally come with pluses and minuses.

In agriculture, for example, running a farm now takes a lot fewer people and a lot more machinery. The advancements have been one factor in rural population declines.

And although there are niche farming operations working to prove there are exceptions to the big-is-more-efficient rule, it’s not likely that overall trends will revert to Americana 1920.

Big or small, technology is essential to any business that wants to survive in the 21^st century.

Today, internet service is as basic as electricity or roads or phones were 50 years ago.

Yet many Kansans don’t have access to decent internetservice. Or if decent service is available, the cost is prohibitive.

Official reports – with data supplied by companies offering internet service – show virtually every Kansan has access.

But reports that rely on customers and potential customers find that nearly a quarter of all rural Americans say internet access is a major problem, and another 38 percent say it’s an issue.

Internet problems aren’t limited to rural Kansas. Many Kansans think their service is lousy and the price outrageous.

Problems are exacerbated for rural residents. Most companies aren’t interested in doing business in areas where the population is too sparsely populated to maximize profits.

In poorer non-rural neighborhoods, service is skimpy or unreliable because residents don’t earn enough money to buy increasingly expensive services.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Kansas universities and schools started closing their doors and moving operations online. The state’s poor connectivity issues immediately became apparent.

Access and affordability issues undermine the potential and ambitions of Kansans every day. A health crisis just made them obvious.

Investing in ways to bring high-speed, reliable, affordable internet service to all Kansans is among the ways we can make a collective investment in the state’s future. It would help small towns and cities deal with health care access and educational opportunities. It would make rural communities more attractive to business. Because virtually every business – farming, sales, banking, retail and so on – must have reliable, fast internet service.

Without collective investments made in the past, your food would not be so plentiful or so cheap. You couldn’t get that overnight delivery from Amazon, or (in non-pandemic times) hop in the car for a weekend getaway.

Rural investments pay dividends not only to rural America, but to all of us.