... and other in-appropriate paralyzing questions Another part of the Collender article that Matt blogs on below concerns the role or strategy (if such exists) of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and congressional leadership regarding the FY 2008 budget process. Collender's perspective: Rather than continuing to agonize about it much longer, it's time to pick a strategy for dealing with the White House on the FY08 appropriations... The president vetoing something and Congress not being able to override it may not be the worst thing that happens to you and may well be more harmful to the administration than to the Democratic majority. After his (otherwise characteristically forthright) speech yesterday at the National Press Club "about the coming manufactured controversy over appropriations bills that will afflict this town over the coming weeks," House Appropriations Chair David Obey (D-MI) demurred when asked if he supported splitting the Labor-HHS and MilCon/VA bills or sending them in tandem to the president, saying that he didn't want to "telegraph" his moves to the GOP. Praytell, why not? Who cares? Just pass your bills, in tandem, trifecta, or quadrophenia, in the teeth of veto threats or regardless of them. Just do it. And then pass the word along to your friends in the Senate, which appears to suffer from advanced BPD (budgocratic paralytic dysfunction). If you can't make Iraq policy, might as well pull hard on the pursestrings. Stop mincing around those veto threats and bring 'em on instead. You may not win, but you will be doing your job and heightening the distinction between your values and vision and whatever passes for them from the Great Vetoer. As Collender concludes, "not passing FY08 appropriations is getting old."