I've been thinking about President Bush's actions this week on fiscal policy, and I've got to admit, I'm pretty darn confused. Let's review:

• Bush vetoed the $150.7 billion Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, which contained a 4.3 percent increase in funding, for containing too much spending, but signed the $471 billion Defense appropriations bill, which had a 9.5 percent increase in funding. Bush has also been pressuring Congress to approve an additional $197 billion in "emergency" war funding. Huh?
• Bush has vowed to veto the AMT patch bill moving (slowly) through Congress because it is fiscally responsible and doesn't add to the deficit. Wait, what?

I suppose Bush believes we should never pass a tax increase and continue to burden our children and grandchildren with mountains of debt. But he is vetoing appropriations bills left and right over much smaller levels of funding (less than 10% as much in many cases) that are not deficit financed. It's difficult for me to understand exactly how the president decides to be the decider on these issues. He has shown he doesn't really care about fiscal responsibility (based on his position on the AMT bill, and, well, on his horrendous fiscal record as president. Actually, he's probably the worst fiscal manager we've ever had as president). He also doesn't seem to care about giving Americans the support and investments they need to succeed - unless those Americans are currently living in Iraq, Afghanistan, or on a military base. Even then his support is suspect as he has worked to cut back veteran's health benefits and often stiffed soldiers on pay increases. Most of the increases are more likely to end up with Halliburton or Lockheed Martin than soldiers). So what is guiding the president in these decisions, if anything at all? Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly may have the answer: It's funny how much more opposed Bush is to Democratic pork than he was to Republican pork, isn't it? But whatever. I don't think anyone seriously believes that Bush really cares about the earmarks in this bill. Basically, he seems to have decided that the only way to stay relevant is to veto stuff. Within the borders of the United States, it's pretty much the only influence he has left. Democrats don't care about him, Republicans wish he'd go away, and the American public is bored with his snooze-inducing speeches. What else can he do to attract attention? Drum just might be right, particularly considering that the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that since 2001, Bush has signed 50 appropriations bill from Republican Congresses that exceeded his budget requests - failing to veto a single one of them. Bush has already been a born-again Christian once. He can't claim to have found religion on this issue too.