So Jim Nussle will be taking over at OMB in August. Congressional Democrats have already begun to romanticize their relationship with current OMB director Rob Portman, probably a sign that they aren't looking forward to working with Nussle. "I very much regret [the departure]," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who has sparred with Portman over budgetary issues. "Rob Portman was someone of credibility and decency, someone I felt I could work with." Portman may have worked well with Congress behind the scenes. But he drank deeply of the kool aid they serve at the White House, the one that makes you say tax cuts for the wealthy are good for everyone and domestic programs need to be cut or privatized. And so will Nussle, who by all accounts is a party loyalist and fiercely anti-government. The rhetoric from the White House probably won't be changing anytime soon. More importantly, how will Nussle's appointment affect policy? Ironically, the President may be softening his stance. When Portman announced that he would be stepping down, he both assured that the President's threats to veto appropriations were real, at the same time that he seemed to introduce a rationale for not vetoing bills that exceed Presidential requests. CongressDaily ($): While Portman said Bush would stand his ground, he did say the president would be flexible on how money is appropriated, as long as the total is within his overall discretionary spending limit. But that also means early Democratic increases in the veterans spending bill, which Bush appears likely to swallow, will have to be paid for elsewhere. "We're not going to try to micromanage the process," Portman said. "If Congress can come up with a top line of $933 [billion] -- which is a 6.9 percent increase from 2007, which is triple inflation or more -- then we will be happy to work with them. But until we see a path to the top line, we will be forced to veto many of these bills as they come through the process." One way to read this is that the President is promising only one veto- the last bill to make it through the appropriations process, which if large enough would bring total discretionary spending over the President's request. But that bill will probably be for the Department of Defense. Would Bush veto it? Indeed, Nussle's appointment gives the appearance of being tough on government spending. But playing up that appearance may be a way for the White House to back away from actually being tough- the thinking being that if someone as crazy as Nussle carries the message that vetoes won't go out, hardliners wouldn't get as mad. That could just be wishful thinking- the next few months will show who's for real and who's not.