“Our professional relationship became one of comity and cooperation. And that may strike you as two strange adjectives to choose, but don’t discount their value in this institution,” Spratt remarked. “Jim saw that the amendments on our side, the Democratic side, were allowed fair consideration. Not passage, mind you, but at least the chance to be argued.”

In addition to giving Democrats a voice during the appropriations process, Nussle also has a track record of working with members across the aisle. He teamed with former Rep. and current Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) in the late 1990s to pass the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act, legislation that redefined the federal budget process.

The problem for Nussle is that he also oversaw the Budget Committee during the first six years of Bush’s presidency, supporting the pro-growth, free-market principles that liberals ridicule at every opportunity. Despite those good policies, the early Bush years were a time when the Republican-led Congress pigged out on earmarks and abandoned its commitment to fiscal discipline. Although he preached fiscal conservatism, Nussle is now being blamed for the GOP’s spending excesses.

Democratic leaders see Nussle’s confirmation as a way to extract concessions from Bush, who promised to veto appropriations bills that exceed his spending requests. Because the Democratic spending proposals come in at $945 billion, about $81 billion or 9% more than last year, there should be plenty of opportunities to use the veto pen.

Bush has the upper hand if it comes to a budget showdown; he already won the funding dispute over the Iraq War. Conrad and his ilk would like to avoid more showdowns like that. And so they are trying to seize the Nussle nomination as a chance to get Bush to swear off the veto option before their bills reach his desk. Here’s hoping the big spenders’ pre-emptive strike fails.