It is August, the most perilous month, a time when evildoers count on the distraction of officials, when Mother Nature prepares her worst storms and when the most serious work is done on the federal budget.

Every year until now the White House has acquiesced in this. Every year the DHS appropriations bill has been one of the first appropriations bills approved by Congress and signed into law by the president by its October 1 deadline.

This year, for the very first time, President Bush has threatened to veto the DHS appropriations bill because it allegedly breaks his budget caps.

In his initial budget request, Bush asked for $35.5 billion for DHS. The House Appropriations Committee increased that to $36.3 billion, a 7 percent increase over 2007 and a 2 percent increase over the president’s request.

Skewed priorities

Why, when the United States is spending $12 billion per month to prosecute the Iraq war, when the global war against terror and protection of the American people are top priorities, when increases have been acceptable in the past, is a 2 percent increase, desired by both sides of the aisle, suddenly unacceptable?

It’s not hard to see the answer: In past years, the increases to DHS appropriations were made by a Republican Congress. When grants were made out of that money, every congressional district got a piece of the pie and members of Congress received credit for the new first responder equipment, security technology, training and increased personnel that resulted. It is, speaking practically, one reason why homeland security is so popular on Capitol Hill and its appropriations pass with such success. Beyond the indisputable need to protect the country, every member of Congress has a dollars and cents stake in it.

But now it appears clear that the White House fears that similar successes in the 2008 appropriations bill would accrue credit to Democrats in Congress and maintain an unfavorable balance of power—especially going into a presidential election year. Suddenly, increases in homeland security that were acceptable in the past are unacceptable and threatened with veto.

Beyond politics

HSToday has always maintained that homeland security is too important to be the subject of partisan politics, while being sufficiently realistic to realize that something this big and vital in government is unavoidably entangled in partisanship.

It is also our view that every investment in homeland security is an investment well made. Every piece of equipment purchased, every hour of training conducted, every enhancement of vigilance, preparedness and intelligence improves the security of all Americans—indeed, of all civilized people. There is no reason for New Yorkers to begrudge grants to Wyoming that help first responders there fight wildfires, and Wyomingites shouldn’t begrudge New Yorkers more police overtime. These investments help us all, and we’re all in this together.

To date, members of Congress of both parties have judged presidential homeland security requests insufficient to the need and increased them. The current Congress, even with a Democratic majority, is no different.

Looked at from a practical political standpoint, a veto of homeland security appropriations is bad politics for a president with extremely low popularity and little credibility. Vetoing the homeland security appropriations bill would just make him seem indifferent to the security of average Americans and insensitive to local first responders. That doesn’t help his party or his partisans in Congress to get re-elected.

What is more, Michael Chertoff, his own secretary of homeland security, has expressed unease over potential terrorist regrouping and plotting.

“I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk,” Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune‘s editorial board in a wide-ranging July discussion. Summertime seems to be appealing to them. We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities.” What is more, he said he had a “gut feeling” of increased vulnerability.

Should an incident occur this summer—or, we sincerely hope, if a plot is foiled and exposed—does the president really want to be standing exposed in the Rose Garden vetoing homeland security spending?

Don’t do it

Now, in the heat of August, Senate staffers will put the final touches on the Senate’s 2008 homeland security appropriations bill. Whether the House increases will be preserved through the Senate deliberations and the conference process will be seen in September.

We urge the president to accept congressional increases as he has in the past. Taking a stand against spending on homeland security is a big mistake: It will serve neither his administration nor his legacy nor his party—and it certainly won’t serve the people of the United States. HST