Bush also flatlines funding for AIDS even though there are 40,000 new infections a year in the United States and medical inflation is pushing up costs for treatment. He’s also proposed a $7.5 million cutback in the Center for Disease Control’s program for breast and cervical-care screening, even though at the current spending level there’s only money to serve 15 percent of the women eligible for the service.

How can this be? The U.S. Treasury still projects the largest surplus in history, despite the slowing economy, and Bush just signed the largest tax cut in a generation, suggesting the country really is in good shape when it comes to caring for people’s needs. Now we discover that the Bush tax cut crowds out spending for just about everything else. Modernizing the military, providing prescription-drug coverage for seniors and putting meaningful education reforms in place are all problematic because of the lack of funds. A conference committee meant to iron out differences between the House and Senate on Bush’s education bill has yet to come together because there’s no money to back up the legislative promises, and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has said he won’t move forward unless there is agreement for more money for education.

This end-of-session jockeying for funds is a favored ritual on Capitol Hill among Democrats, who usually succeed in squeezing more dollars out of the Republicans by embarrassing them with charges of tightfistedness on popular programs. But this year both sides are predicting “an ugly fall” when the House confronts a series of controversial appropriations bills. The most contentious are the Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations because they are the umbrella for Democratic priorities in health, education and worker training and are symbolic of what Republicans regard as “the nanny government” in the lives of Americans.

The Labor/HHS bill is typically the last bill signed by the president. Last year, President Clinton signed it on Dec. 15; the year before, it was Nov. 19. There was a well-defined dynamic in place with Clinton. Everybody knew how skilled he was with the bully pulpit, and Republicans feared his ability to characterize them as meanies willing to throw old people in the snow or deny children medical care. Democrats didn’t even attend the conference committee organized by the GOP-controlled Congress. The minute a bill emerged, Clinton would issue a veto threat and lawmakers would spend the next three or four months negotiating higher spending levels.

With a Republican in the White House, the dynamic shifts. Bush has to defend his cuts along with the realization that the money isn’t there because it went to pay for his tax cut. But Democrats are vulnerable too. Unless they can focus attention on what the budget cuts really mean, Bush can distract the media and the public by changing the subject. In the Labor/HHS bill, he will point to the one truly bright spot: his commitment to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health by $2.8 billion, or 13.8 percent.

The problem, says a Democratic aide working on the bill, “That leaves next to nothing for everything else.” Clinton could always define what was happening in a way that connected with people. The challenge for Democrats is to do what Clinton did without Clinton and make the country’s nursing shortage a metaphor for Bush’s misplaced priorities.

FBI SHAKE-UP?

With his confirmation certain as FBI director, Robert Mueller has signaled the Bureau’s top brass that he won’t be arriving with a phalanx of his own people. He doesn’t want his installation as director to appear like a hostile takeover. But he did promise the Senate Judiciary committee that he would shake up the senior staff. To fulfill those two goals, which seem at odds, Mueller is expected to request the FBI’s top people to reapply for their jobs. That way, he has the flexibility to either ask them to stay or offer them reassignment. The rumor mill has it that Mueller “operates pretty lean” and that he can be brutal about letting people go. In a previous situation where he came in cold and took over, word has it that he relieved 17 of 19 people of their assignment.

WHIP RACE

The race for Democratic whip is heating up even though the current whip, Michigan Rep. David Bonior, has yet to officially give notice that he’s stepping down. Backers of both candidates, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, think their side has the edge. Pelosi has more publicly committed votes, but the contest will be decided on a secret ballot. Members of Congress are notoriously duplicitous when it comes to public promises and secret voting. In 1970, Democrat Mo Udall thought he had enough commitments to be elected House majority leader. When he ended up 58 votes short in a secret ballot, he said, “Now I know the difference between a cactus and the [House Democratic] caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside.” Sources familiar with Democratic leader Richard Gephardt’s thinking insist he has no favorite in the race. Some Pelosi backers think Gephardt has tilted toward Hoyer, but Gephardt’s job would be easier if Pelosi won, because it would bring much needed gender balance to a party that relies on the votes of women.