budget kabuki

Submitted by Dave Meyer on September 4, 2007 - 10:25am

Iraq will dominate most of the headlines for the next month, but lurkng in the background is a potentially massive fight over presidential vetoes of FY 2008 appropriations bills. A new fiscal year starts October 1st, and 12 appropriations bills are supposed to be passed and signed by then. The House has passed all 12 bills, but the Senate has only passed 1, and President Bush has threatened to veto 9 of the 12 House bills, calling them "irresponsible and excessive."

In fact, the President proposed a discretionary budget of $922 billion; Democrats want to add $22 billion, or about 2.4% more than Bush.

And when you look at the details, Democrats have done a pretty good job of picking out worthy priorities to invest in: important programs that have languished under Republican misrule; cost effective programs that offer outsized return on investment; and programs that are needed to clean up after the President's misuse of the armed forces and mismanagement of Homeland Security resources. Democrats have proposed cutting some fat to free up resources to improve support for veterans, increase access to higher education and health care, secure American ports and Airports, and invest in first responders.

Here are details on each of the appropriations bills (watch for pdfs):

FY 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill | House Roll Call HR 3222 (395-13, 187 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS NOT promised a veto [Read the Statement of Administration Policy]

FY 2008 Agriculture Bill | House Roll Call HR 3161 (237-18, 11 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS promised a veto

FY 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill | House Roll Call HR 3093 (281-142, 55 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS promised a veto

FY 2008 Labor, Health and Education Appropriations Bill | House Roll Call HR 3043 (276-140, 53 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS promised a veto

FY 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill | House Roll Call HR 3074 (268-153, 43 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS promised a veto

FY 2008 State and Foreign Operations Bill | House Roll Call HR 2764 (241-178, 31 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS promised a veto

FY 2008 Legislative Branch Bill | House Roll Call HR 2771 (216-176, 14 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS NOT promised a veto

FY 2008 Financial Services Bill | House Roll Call HR 2829 (240-179, 18 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS promised a veto

FY 2008 Interior and the Environment Bill | House Roll Call HR 2643 (272-155, 48 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS promised a veto

FY 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Bill | House Roll Call HR 2642 (409-2, 185 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS NOT promised a veto [Read the Statement of Administration Policy]

FY 2008 Energy and Water Bill | House Roll Call HR 2641 (312-112, 86 Republicans voting for) | No Senate Vote | Bush HAS promised a veto

FY 2008 Homeland Security Bill | House Roll Call HR 2638 (268-150, 45 Republicans voting for) | Senate Roll Call (89-4 -- with amendment) | Bush HAS promised a veto.

Dems on the appropriations committee have published a useful summary [pdf] of their funding priorities and where they differ from the administration's requests.

It should be clear what's going on here. With the deluge of "moral scandals" from Foley to Craig, and the elimination of the "security gap," the GOP is trying a last gasp effort to retain its brand credibility on fiscal responsibility. They want a big public veto fight over spending. You don't have to take my word for it -- here's Grover Norquist in today's Los Angeles Times:

GOP activists see a budget fight as a way to get back into the good graces of conservatives angry at the growth of government spending under a Republican president and previous Congress. Bush started with a $128-billion budget surplus, ran a $158-billion deficit in his first budget and set a record in the 2004 federal fiscal year with a $413-billion deficit. Congressional auditors estimate this year's deficit at $158 billion.

"Bush could reinvigorate the Republican Party through a veto strategy this year and into next," said Grover Norquist, president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. "The best gift the president could give Republican candidates is a Republican president vetoing Democratic overspending, which reminds people why you have to have an 'R' in the White House."

The President's veto threats are pure politics, not about the merits of any particular spending bill, but about the perception of Republican budget hawkery.

I can understand the allure of a strategy like this for the President and for zealots like Norquist. In theory, it gives the Republican brand a bit of bite.

But what about the Republican Congressmen up in 2008? The 22 GOP candidates running for Senate seats currently held by Republicans? Most of the House bills passed with significant Republican support -- in large part, that's because they are good bills. People like things like health insurance for kids, police officers on the streets, and investment in bridges and levees. If Bush throws them under the bus with his veto pen, he's risking another landslide election.