Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is that you do not need 100% of your budget every year, but getting it back when you do need it is much harder than keeping it in the first place. Definite case of misaligned incentives.
I've never understood this about budgeting. So you allocate. A budget. These are fund YOU ARE PLANNING TO SPEND! So, OK, you DON'T spend them this year. Why the fuck don't you get to SAVE THAT MONEY!? No, instead you are punished for now spending it all and you cannot create a realistic budget for next year - why the hell not!? Sorry, but this frustrates the hell out of me! What am I missing here? What arcane bit of…
1) separation of duty: you might not be the best department to invest surplus
2) cost effectiveness: if you're operating with a deficit, as is generally the case with governments these days, this money is not free, so it could effectively be cheaper to give it back and re-borrow it when you actually need it