The legislative process in the United States has faced ongoing criticism for its failure to adopt a comprehensive annual budget. Instead of passing a single, integrated plan that accounts for both government spending and revenue collection, Congress frequently relies on temporary funding extensions, often referred to as continuing resolutions, to keep federal agencies operational.

Proponents of budget reform, such as policy analyst Kurt Couchman, argue that this reliance on short-term fixes undermines the government's ability to maintain fiscal control. By decoupling spending decisions from revenue discussions, the current system prevents lawmakers from effectively managing the national debt and setting long-term economic priorities. The lack of a formal, integrated budget process is viewed by some as a structural failure that contributes to political gridlock and creates uncertainty for federal departments that cannot plan beyond the expiration of temporary funding bills.

While the current system allows for the avoidance of immediate government shutdowns, critics contend that it masks the true scale of federal financial commitments. The debate centers on whether the legislative branch should prioritize a return to a traditional, comprehensive budget cycle to restore transparency and accountability. However, there is no consensus on how to overcome the political incentives that favor short-term funding patches over the complex negotiations required for a full budget agreement.