Great conversation. That's a sneaky trick, having majorities in the first half of the President's term appropriate money for their agenda so that voters are impotent to change funding directions in the midterms.
A great convo, but totally contrary to my intuitions. The idea of favoring annual appropriations for things that will _almost reliably_ need at least the same money further on is mind-breaking. I understand that the amendment procedure in US is meant to be unattainable, but I would very much want that two-year limit on army funding stripped out (at least, I would if I were in the US or strongly on its side; less obvious given the 180 under Trump).
Great conversation. That's a sneaky trick, having majorities in the first half of the President's term appropriate money for their agenda so that voters are impotent to change funding directions in the midterms.
A great convo, but totally contrary to my intuitions. The idea of favoring annual appropriations for things that will _almost reliably_ need at least the same money further on is mind-breaking. I understand that the amendment procedure in US is meant to be unattainable, but I would very much want that two-year limit on army funding stripped out (at least, I would if I were in the US or strongly on its side; less obvious given the 180 under Trump).