By David Clarke and Liriel Higa, CQ Staff

The plan to complete this year’s spending bills was in flux late Monday as House Democrats considered whether to abandon what they have offered as their compromise to fund the government for fiscal 2008.

A veto threat from the White House over the weekend on the “split the difference” approach to an omnibus spending package and comments from House and Senate GOP leaders criticizing the plan caused House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey to consider coming up with a new strategy. In order to get this year’s appropriations work done by the end of the month, a clearly frustrated Obey, D-Wis., said he might abandon the omnibus that staff was assembling. He said advancing a bill at the spending level demanded by President Bush may be the only way to complete the work.

“We’re either going to get together like reasonable people or we’re not,” he said. “My position is, win or lose, we have to move on. I don’t want to chew last year’s cud 15 more times. I’m willing to win; I’m willing to lose, fair and square. I just want us to cut the bull gravy and get to the bottom line.”

On Monday, Obey floated the idea of moving an omnibus spending measure that would provide the overall spending figure Bush requested — in part by eliminating earmarks.

Democrats are facing the political reality that, as the year draws to a close, Republicans have not budged from their support of the president’s spending stance. That means that the Democratic majority currently lacks the votes to override vetoes of its spending priorities.

Democrats have vowed that if they must cut back on their spending plans, they will attempt to make the GOP pay a political price. “Actions have consequences,” said a senior Democratic Senate aide.

Republicans have brushed aside this threat, trying to portray Democrats’ spending plans as excessive.

No final decisions have been made on strategy, and Democrats could well decide to move forward with their original compromise approach this week. The House had been tentatively scheduled to vote on the omnibus spending bill late Tuesday, but that schedule has probably slipped now that Democrats are reconsidering their options.

Democrats have been assembling a spending package that would split the difference between their budget plan and the president’s proposal for the 12 fiscal 2008 spending bills.

The plan would roll the remaining fiscal 2008 bills into one package and would provide, when coupled with the already enacted defense bill (PL 110-116), about $11 billion more than the $933 billion the president requested for the spending bills. That would be only half as much as Democrats initially wanted.

The spending package also would probably include up to $31 billion for the war in Afghanistan and protection equipment for U.S. troops. Another $7 billion would be included in emergency funds — which do not count against budget caps — for items such as border security, drought relief and a low-income heating program, which have at least some Republican support.

But the White House slowed momentum on this plan Dec. 8, when budget director Jim Nussle said the president would veto such legislation because it would include $18 billion more than he requested — when the $11 billion in regular funding was added to the $7 billion that would be deemed emergency spending.

Democrats have viewed the plan as a compromise offer likely to be amended in the Senate, where Republicans presumably would try to trim the funding levels further and add money for the war in Iraq.

Anti-war groups would be unhappy if a compromise led to war spending. Obey said he does not want war and domestic funding to be pitted against each other as bargaining chips, noting that he has long argued that the issues should be dealt with in separate bills.

“I want no linkage whatsoever,” he said, also noting that leadership has overruled that approach in the past.

GOP Opposition

House Republican leaders have come out strongly against the omnibus package, even if it was to serve as a vehicle for some Iraq War spending. “No deal,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, said Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky., did not rule out a compromise on both domestic and war spending, but on Saturday he called the proposal being drafted “unacceptable.”

Senate Republicans have been viewed by Democrats as their best partners for forging a compromise — particularly McConnell, who has spent years on the Appropriations Committee. Earlier in the month McConnell, without providing details, said he thought the standoff over war and domestic spending could be resolved in one legislative package. Now Democrats, a bit miffed by his weekend statement, are pushing him to accept the role of deal maker.

“This next couple of days are going to test Sen. McConnell’s leadership,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “McConnell has to decide if he wants to lead his caucus over a cliff.”

Meanwhile, some Republicans think they lost their fiscal conservative “brand” in recent years and view a tough spending fight as a way to reclaim it.

Senate Democrats appear more willing to hold out for a possible compromise on spending. And Obey at times can react angrily to statements from Republicans that others in his party view as political spin from the opposition.

Obey’s Senate counterpart also urged the administration to back down. “The White House should cease its political posturing and work with the Congress to complete the appropriations process,” Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert C. Byrd , D-W.Va., said in a statement Monday. “It is time to govern, Mr. President.”

Obey made clear that if Democrats have to cut their spending plans back to the president’s level, they will target Republican-supported programs and earmarks for savings.

But most of that savings would most likely have to come from earmarks, as there is not a wealth of programs in the spending bills with primarily GOP support.

Alan K. Ota contributed to this report.