| Description: | Proponents of biennial budgeting have generally advanced three arguments-that a two-year budget cycle would (1) reduce congressional workload by eliminating the need for annual review of routine matters; (2) reserve the second session of each Congress for improved congressional oversight and program review; and (3) allow better long-term planning by the agencies that spend federal funds at the federal, state, or local level. |
|---|---|
| Creator(s): | Tollestrup, Jessica |
| Location(s): | United States |
| Creation Date: | April 12, 2011 |
| Partner(s): |
UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
|
| Collection(s): |
Congressional Research Service Reports
|
| Usage: |
Total Uses: 20
Past 30 days: 1
Yesterday: 0
|
| Creator (Author): |
Tollestrup, Jessica
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process |
|
|---|---|---|
| Publisher Info: |
Publisher Name: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress
Place of Publication: Washington, D.C.
|
|
| Original Creation Date: | April 12, 2011 | |
| Coverage: |
|
|
| Description: | Proponents of biennial budgeting have generally advanced three arguments-that a two-year budget cycle would (1) reduce congressional workload by eliminating the need for annual review of routine matters; (2) reserve the second session of each Congress for improved congressional oversight and program review; and (3) allow better long-term planning by the agencies that spend federal funds at the federal, state, or local level. |
|
| Physical Description: |
20 pages. |
|
| Language(s): | ||
| Subject(s): |
|
|
| Partner: |
UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
|
|
| Collection: |
Congressional Research Service Reports
|
|
| Identifier: |
|
|
| Resource Type: | Text | |
| Format: | Text | |
