Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 306

Should Congress Switch to a Two-Year Budget?

Argument in favor

If Congress transitions to a two-year biennial budget it will give lawmakers more time for oversight and bring greater transparency to the budgeting and appropriations process. The switch could reduce the likelihood of government shutdowns.

Casey's Opinion
···
02/24/2017
I have seen the amount of effort, manpower, and tax dollars put into developing the current budget cycle, and with the slow moving beast that the USG is, a two year cycle makes much more sense. A one year cycle is an exercise in futility.
Like (33)
Follow
Share
Veronica's Opinion
···
02/24/2017
Actually agree with this one; with Congress only having to go through the budget approval process once every two years, maybe they can actually get something else done in the off years.
Like (17)
Follow
Share
Robert's Opinion
···
02/24/2017
Yes, absolutely. A two-year budget would allow agencies to better plan operations for a longer period of time resulting in better mission delivery.
Like (13)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Congress is going to be inefficient and dysfunctional whether they prepare the federal budget two years at a time or not. Not only that, but it is hard to forecast how much tax revenue will be available two years in advance and how it should be spent.

Laura's Opinion
···
02/24/2017
I believe that having to renew the budget every year actually provides nore transparency for the public. I also do not trust Congress to make frugal choices when they have 2 years to look ahead to because many things can change in 2 years.
Like (297)
Follow
Share
Kristen's Opinion
···
02/24/2017
Absolutely no point in extending the damage these GOP scumbags will outline in their budget. One year of their shitty priorities is a year too long.
Like (161)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
02/20/2017
If you can't pass a budget for a single fiscal year without passing one at the very last minute, how can the people trust congress to responsibly pass a budget for multiple years?
Like (103)
Follow
Share
    I have seen the amount of effort, manpower, and tax dollars put into developing the current budget cycle, and with the slow moving beast that the USG is, a two year cycle makes much more sense. A one year cycle is an exercise in futility.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    I believe that having to renew the budget every year actually provides nore transparency for the public. I also do not trust Congress to make frugal choices when they have 2 years to look ahead to because many things can change in 2 years.
    Like (297)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely no point in extending the damage these GOP scumbags will outline in their budget. One year of their shitty priorities is a year too long.
    Like (161)
    Follow
    Share
    If you can't pass a budget for a single fiscal year without passing one at the very last minute, how can the people trust congress to responsibly pass a budget for multiple years?
    Like (103)
    Follow
    Share
    Yearly budgets means more transparency.
    Like (81)
    Follow
    Share
    2-years stuck with bad legislation is not a solution
    Like (62)
    Follow
    Share
    Public health crises and massive natural disasters happen suddenly and unexpectedly. If we budget for two years and we are hit by a major crises one year into our two year budget, we are in for a great deal of hurt. This is a foolish thing to do - the budget should be prepared annually.
    Like (56)
    Follow
    Share
    I review my budget annually. It's good fiscal practice.
    Like (44)
    Follow
    Share
    Is there no end to them trying to rig the system? Jesus Christ. Enough.
    Like (36)
    Follow
    Share
    This sure would give them more time to campaign! No. If it was up to me they would do a budget every month just so it stays in the spotlight and the American public has closer, more responsive representation. Every two years? No. Full analysis here: http://www.libertylol.com/biennialbudgeting.html
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    This is just to further hide the Republicans raiding and pillaging of the treasury which is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt as it is. The United States will never become solvent and pay off its debts.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    Congress has only one job that needs to be done, get a budget out by October 1 each year. They have failed to do so for years. Why reward them for their inability to do their job by making the requirement less stringent? If we want to make progress in this area, withhold all Congressional pay and benefits for members and their aides from October 1 until a budget is approved each year.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    How would we decide upon funding for public health crises that emerge over time (i.e. Zika, Ebola, Swine Flu) without reviewing the budget on a yearly basis?
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Actually agree with this one; with Congress only having to go through the budget approval process once every two years, maybe they can actually get something else done in the off years.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    I don't see a benefit to this. If you claim to be a savvy business professional it doesn't seem to me like you'd only revisit a budget every two years. Seems more like a way cement policies while you have a majority. I think Republicans are planning for if they don't do well in the mid terms and this looks like a way to try to maximize effectiveness of their agendas while they're still in office.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Budgeting needs to happen annually - things change quickly. We need more attention to the budget, not less.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Congress has shown a distinct inability to pass an annual budget without a time cushion. This just seems to be a workload dump, will it give them more time? Yes. Will they use that time accordingly, their history says no. Conversely, I would argue that the budget needs to updated more frequently. The bigger the update cushion, the less flexible you are with market trends. Besides, we all know that creating a budget and adhering to it are two different things to our government. Lack of time is not the problem for Congress, the problem is lack of commitment. The amount of time that they actually spend working is appalling. I think what we need to do is create a time budget for Congress; they have projects (i.e. Annual Budget), if they do not complete by target date they lose perks until they do. Perks being but not limited to; voluntary recesses, voluntary vacation time, and any commissions or bonuses above base salaries. Just the thought gives me tingles, Congress gets paid for performance.....let that sink in. (ref. http://fortune.com/2012/11/06/want-to-fix-congress-lets-institute-pay-for-performance/)
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    No. DO YOUR JOB. Congress needs to get to work for the PEOPLE of this country. Period. This wouldn't even be a question if these swindlers weren't looking for a handout from a lobbyist for every move they make.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, absolutely. A two-year budget would allow agencies to better plan operations for a longer period of time resulting in better mission delivery.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Budget? Really this is laughable. Why bother with a budget when it's not adhered to? Can we eliminate business lunches & private flights? I'd rather they have a monthly budget as opposed to a yearly one! Can we get that to happen?
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE