Omnibusting: Omnibus Spending Bill, Earmarks, Pork and Budget Gimmicks

President Bush’s year-long fight with Democrats over federal spending gave conservatives hope that the White House had finally adopted the backbone needed to stand firm for fiscal restraint. It was less clear yesterday the Bush Administration would carry that fight into 2008. The release of a Statement of Administration Policy clearly stated Bush’s intention to veto the omnibus, as it’s currently written. However, Bush appears to be leaving the door open to signing the mammoth bill if money for U.S. troops in Iraq is added.

With the Senate set to tackle the Iraq funding issue as early as today, it appears Congress and the White House are closer to striking a deal than conservatives would like. Yesterday, Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle said he was generally pleased with the concessions Democrats made regarding policy changes in the bill. He all but dismissed the notion of a veto for the explosion of earmarks, which the White House wanted cut in half. And Nussle appeared resigned to the fact that the administration would have to swallow nearly $20 billion in “emergency” spending and budget gimmicks.

The White House’s position has left groups like the Club for Growth deeply disappointed and conservatives frustrated by the apparent willingness to settle for a bad bill.

Less than 24 hours after Democrats unveiled a mammoth omnibus spending bill, the House of Representatives moved swiftly last night to approve it, shifting the battle to the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to add about $40 billion to the bill for U.S. troops in Iraq; Democrats don’t appear to have the votes to stop it.

The House took two votes last night, the first for a bill without money for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. It won approval, 253 to 154, with 41 Republicans breaking ranks to support the measure. Eight Democrats voted with the GOP. The second vote, on a bill that included $31 billion for fighting in Afghanistan, was much closer, 206 to 201. Democrats needed to woo five Republicans to back the measure otherwise it would have failed. Eighteen Democrats voted against the measure.

Republicans voted against the latter bill because it included money only for troops serving in Afghanistan, suggesting Congress viewed the military men and women in Iraq differently. With the legislation now moving to the Senate, Republicans expect to add the Iraq money to the bill.