An Analytic Framework for the FY 2008 Budget Battle For the last several weeks, the Bush administration has issued a series of veto threats and importunings to Congress regarding "irresponsible and excessive" levels of spending in FY 2008 appropriations bills. Some observers have wondered how seriously to take the administration's rhetoric, in view of what some see as back-tracking on or inconsistency between these statements. What follows is an analytic framework explaining what at first blush may seem like a shifting veto strategy, that is to say, an incoherent strategy or no strategy at all. The administration's opening salvo was announced on May 11, in a letter from OMB Director Rob Portman to House Budget chair John Spratt (D-SC): I will recommend the President veto any appropriations bill that exceeds his request until Congress demonstrates a sustainable path that keeps discretionary spending within the President's topline of $933 billion and ensures that the Department of Defense has the resources necessary to accomplish its mission. Five days later, after Congress had adopted a FY 2008 Budget Resolution providing $955 billion in discretionary spending, Portman issued a press release stating: "I will recommend the President veto appropriations bills that exceed our request for discretionary spending." This month, the administration has issued Statements of Administration Policy regarding three appropriations bills, with the following operative veto language:

• H.R. 2638, Homeland Security Appropriations Act [June 12] -- "H.R. 2638 exceeds the President's requests for programs funded in this bill by $2.1 billion, part of the $22 billion increase above the President's request for FY 2008 appropriations. The Administration has asked that Congress demonstrate a path to live within the President's topline and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions elsewhere. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if H.R. 2638 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill."
• H.R. 2641 — Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act [June 13] -- "H.R. 2641 exceeds the President's requests for programs funded in this bill by $1.1 billion, part of the $22 billion increase above the President's request for FY 2008 appropriations. The Administration asked that Congress demonstrate a path to live within the President's topline and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions elsewhere. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if H.R. 2641 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill."
• H.R. 2642 — Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act [June 13] -- If Congress determines that additional resources above the President's request and enacted supplemental funding are necessary, Congress must provide reductions in other appropriations bills to offset this increase and meet the President's topline of $933 billion. If Congress increases VA funding above the President's request and does not offset this increase with spending reductions in other bills, the President will veto any of the other bills that exceed his request until Congress demonstrates a path to reach the President's topline of $933 billion."

These statements bear careful reading. Ignore wire service stories and commentariat interpretations that fail to quote these passages in full. To see how they are consistent with the $933 billion "topline" figure and mutually reinforcing, it is helpful to consider the aggregate margin for error that the Congressional 302(b) allocations afford the president. The four instances where Bush has requested more money than Congress' allocations total $5.3 billion. That's the maximum amount of additional spending over and above his requests that "demonstrate a path to live within the President's topline," without requiring aggregate offsets. Bush has announced that he will not veto only one spending bill thus far, MilCon-VA, where Congress has exceeded his request by $4 billion -- an amount within his margin for error and, therefore, not foreclosing a path toward his $933 billion topline. If the "Aggregate Topline" theory has predictive value -- assuming the president ends up signing the MilCon-VA bill and Congress' other bills similarly track its 302(b) allocations-- he will be compelled to veto the following bills:

• Labor-HHS-Education ($10 bn. over his request)
• Homeland Security ($3 bn. over)
• Commerce-Justice-Science ($2 bn. over)
• Interior-Environment ($2 bn. over)
• Transportation-HUD ($2 bn. over)