No sooner than a congressional budget resolution emerges from conference committee, do we get another obligatory statement from OMB Dirctor Rob Portman threatening to "veto appropriations bills that exceed our request for discretionary spending" and because the budget resolution "rel[ies] on tax increases." Portman's paranoia has him seeing tax increases where none exist; it's his own rite of passage in the Administration, at the expense of his hard-earned reputation after many years in Washington as an honest broker. The budget resolution calls for revenue neutral budgets over the next five years -- any tax cuts are paid for by revenue surpluses -- not tax increases -- and the resolution make no calls for tax increases at all. Furthermore, the administration is backing itself into a mechanical and politically awkward strategy where, to retain any credibility, it must veto every "excessive" spending bill it gets. As Stan Collender points out in his column ($) this week: ... the White House could have evaluated the support for each appropriation bill individually and vetoed only those it was certain of winning. The Portman letter makes that strategy impossible. It also puts congressional Republicans in a very difficult position by forcing them to choose between supporting the White House and hurting themselves back home. It's hard to see how those Republicans will side with the White House under these circumstances and, therefore, how the administration's latest budget strategy can succeed. Any wager on whether Portman will issue yet another veto threat when Congress approves the budget resolution conference report later this week?