On the other hand, overall defense spending is widely considered one of the most difficult items to place on a two-year cycle, since some military expenditures are often neither predictable nor deferrable. You suggest that government contractors, grantees and program recipients will benefit by program managers having more resources and ability to devote to focusing on improved program results. Contractors, grantees and program recipients benefit from greater certainty with respect to funding over time. Moreover, instability of weapons-system production also increases costs for both the government and its contractors. In my testimony, I make reference to remarks offered by Dr. Alice Rivlin.
Military capability suffers if signals change too frequently. . . .
Moreover, service delivery whether roads, schools, health, or whatever requires planning time. Frequent change and uncertainty of funding are costly and disruptive. Annual review of research grants increases the ratio of proposal writing to actual work. Indeed, almost all programs would work better if authorizations and appropriations were enacted for several years. Another GAO report with information relevant to this question was released in 1993.