A billion here, a billion there …

Earlier this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband dined privately at the White House with the president and his wife.

Ms. Pelosi then returned to meet with the president Wednesday to discuss differences between the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress over $433 billion in spending that the president has sought for non-defense programs.

Lawmakers insistent on larding up this year’s 12 annual spending bills with rewards for their campaign donors and pork for the folks back home have increased the president’s spending proposals by about 5 percent. The president has threatened vetoes or signaled veto threats against nine of those 12 bloated spending bills.

After the meeting, Ms. Pelosi told reporters that Democrats want to work with the president “to negotiate the very small difference between Democrats and Republicans on these appropriations bills.”

A small difference?

In response, Mr. Bush did not refer to Ms. Pelosi by name, probably in an attempt to maintain civility with his new dinner guest. But the president did insist, “Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a ‘very small difference.’ That’s a lot of money — even for career politicians in Washington.”

And the president further chided Democratic leaders for planning to send Congress into its summer recess this weekend without sending him a single one of the bills.

“If Congress doesn’t pass the spending bills by the end of the fiscal year,” on Sept. 30, “Cabinet secretaries report that their departments may be unable to move forward with urgent priorities for our country,” Mr. Bush said. “This doesn’t have to be this way.”

Since future budget increases will “piggyback” on current spending, the Democratic spending hikes could amount to $205 billion over five years, which would average out to $1,300 in additional — unnecessary — spending per second, the president said.

Unfortunately, the president’s enthusiasm for fiscal restraint seems to have surfaced rather late in his tenure. If he has ever proposed a federal budget smaller than the previous year’s — if he has ever so much as proposed a reduction in the budget of a single federal department (the real kind, not what passes for a “reduction” in Washington, by which they mean “a reduced increase”) it has escaped our attention.

A lot of billions flowed under the bridge during Mr. Bush’s first six years in office, during which time it often appeared he’d mislaid his veto pen under the nearest bag of pretzels.

But that said, even if this president is a tad late rediscovering the fiscal heritage of such Republican forebears as Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater, his newfound firmness is to be celebrated.

What would really shock the business-as-usual teat suckers is if Mr. Bush were to demonstrate the kind of backbone on this issue that he’s been showing in his support of the troops in Iraq. Go ahead and use that veto pen, Mr. President. When their campaign donors start asking where the money went, you might be surprised at how much more “fiscally responsible” Ms. Pelosi and her gang can suddenly become.