The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has compared the virtues of annual state budgets vs. two-year state budgets, and after long and careful consideration reached a conclusion that can be summed up this way:

“Whatever.”

Gov. Terry Branstad insists that Iowa must switch to two-year budgeting. He absolutely won’t sign a one-year budget, he has said. And don’t try the trick of putting the bill and a piece of carbon paper under an expense account form, because he’s not falling for that again. That may be how we wound up with all of these casinos.

The governor is convinced that his way would allow for better planning, but he is swimming against the tide on this issue. In a report that was updated a year ago, the NCSL said: “The trend among state governments for the past 70 years has been to abandon biennial budgeting for annual budgeting. Forty-four states practiced biennial budgeting in 1940. Twenty will do so in 2010, when Arkansas turns from biennial to annual budgeting.”

Back in 1940, according to the report, only four state legislatures bothered to meet every year, so it made sense to fill in the blanks for two years at a time. The custom gradually changed to annual sessions, however, as state government became more complex and dollar totals grew. Also, meeting every year makes it easier for lawmakers to remember secret handshakes and the difference between “aye” and “nay.”

Now, 45 states hold annual legislative sessions. If you show up every year and don’t have a budget to play with, you’re left scrapping over moral issues. And politicians aren’t qualified in any special way to do that, are they?

When you meet annually, you can take a look at the current income and the current bills and use them as a basis for hammering out a budget. If you plan two years ahead, you would be less pressured and have a chance to make bigger plans. Which is better? “There is little evidence of clear advantages of either annual or biennial state budgeting practices,” the NCSL said. “These are the findings of two major studies.”

Note the use of “two” and “major.” Sounds like the NCSL has dinner waiting and doesn’t want to engage in a long debate.

Not only are two-year plans in the minority, but “true” two-year plans are barely on the radar screen. As of a year ago, only Oregon, North Dakota and Wyoming were enacting a single budget spanning two years. The other members of the two-year club enact a one-year budget plus another one-year budget. Either way, guesswork is a key element.

Bleedingheartland.com recently noted: “It’s important to remember that there are no Iowa revenue forecasts for fiscal year 2013. The Revenue Estimating Conference meets periodically to revise revenue projections for the current budget year and the one to come, but even the most preliminary numbers for fiscal year 2013 have yet to appear. Iowa law restricts general fund spending to no more than 99 percent of projected revenues, but (legislators) will have no idea whether they are spending 89 percent or 99 percent or 109 percent of state revenues in 2013. They’ll be making a shot in the dark.”

Planning ahead is a good thing, but you might have noticed in your own life that plans are often sidetracked. Iowa has more statisticians than you do, but its future is unpredictable, too.

The global economy collapses. Rivers flood cities. Tornadoes touch down. Or maybe something good happens, which mathematicians claim is theoretically possible.

Does it make sense to face such an unpredictable future with a two-year plan? In the words of the NCSL, “evidence from the past is inconclusive.” Unfortunately, that’s the only kind of evidence we have.

Jim Pollock is the editor of the Des Moines Business Record. He can be reached by email at jimpollock@bpcdm.com