This week, Democratic Congressional leadership is mulling options for attaching domestic spending provisions to a forthcoming war supplemental bill. OMB Director Jim Nussle has warned Congress that a war spending bill that exceeds the president's remaining FY 2008 request ($108 billion) will be vetoed. President Bush has shown that when it comes to domestic spending bills, his threats are credible -- witness last year's Labor-H appropriations bill and SCHIP enhancement. But when it comes to war funding, it's a different story. On May 1 last year, the president vetoed a war supplemental bill (H.R. 1591) because, according to this SAP, it contained not only troop withdrawal language, but also "billions in unrequested spending that is largely unjustified and non-emergency." The bill would have funded the wars at about $100 billion and domestic spending at about $24 billion. After adoption by the House and Senate, the bill was vetoed as promised. Congress promptly sent Bush another war supplemental (H.R. 2206) containing similar levels for domestic and war spending, but it did lack troop withdrawal language. The president issued another veto threat citing concerns about "billions of dollars of spending and other provisions completely unrelated to the war." Despite that threat, the president signed the bill. This should inform Congress's deliberations regarding how much domestic spending it can attach to a war supplemental. Put bluntly: It shouldn't be shy. At. All. There's plenty of reason to believe that the president's unquenchable thirst for war-making money would render his veto hand limp before a laundry list of much-needed domestic spending provisions.