Appropriations -- the legislation that funds about one-third of what the government spends each year and which has to be enacted annually to prevent a shutdown (remember 1995 and 1996?) have become the forgotten child amidst everything happening in Washington these days.  Nuts and bolts-like spending for everything from compensation to...well...actual nuts and bolts just isn't as sexy as health care, bailouts, stimulus bills, Supreme Court nominees, and cap and trade.

But in just a little over a month, apropriations will have to be the primary focus for Congress because, when the House and Senate return from the August recess, the start of the new fiscal year will be about 3 weeks away.

So how's it going?

The quick answer is that Congress actually has a decent chance of getting most or even all appropriations enacted by the start of fiscal 2010 on October 1.

This would be quite a feat in any year.  But in a transition year when the White House changed hands and submitted its detailed budget much later than usual, and when the economy and many other issues have sucked up most of the time and political energy in Washington, Congress and the White House completing work on all of the appropriations would be a significant achievement.

As of today, the House has already passed 7 of the 12 appropriatios for 2010.  The statutory deadline is June 30 so officially the House officially is behind schedule.  But, as noted above, Congress began work on appopiations late this year because of the transition, so at least for now it deseerves some slack.  After all, we're only a little over two weeks past the deadline and the detailed budget didn't arrive on Capital Hill until the spring, that is, months after it usually arrives in late January or early February.

Meanwhile, the Senate, which doesn't have a June 30 deadline, has already passed two of the bills and that chamber's appropriations committee has approved nine others not just by overwhelmingly bi-partisan margins, but unanimously.  That bodes quite well when these bills are considered on the Senate floor.

The three appropiations bills that are moving the slowest are Defense, Financial Services, and Tranportation.  I was told late yesterday, however, that the slower schedule for these bills is largely due to legislative strategy rather than inertia.

However, the Defense appropriation may be in trouble for other reasons.  The White House has issued what appears to be a very serious veto threat if Congress spends more on the F22 and for an alternative engine for the F35 than the president has requested.  My strong suspicion is that, while the White House would prefer not to veto a bill produced by a Democrat-controlled Congress, it also won't hesitate to do so if (1) it thinks it will win the fight, that is, if its veto isn't overridden, and (2) it can used the veto to demonstrate that the president is serious about earmarks.

The interesting political question is how House and Senate Republicans will vote on a veto override of the Defense appropriation if it comes to that.

On the one hand, many states and congressional districts benefit from the two systems the White House has singled out and the Republican members from those areas will likely want to override.  But doing that will mean that they will be subject to charges that they were defending earmarks and will make it harder for the GOP to use that issue against Democrats.

On the other hand, an override will make it easier for congressional Republicans to claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are really the ones running the government and both of them have a much lower approval rating than the president.

All of this means that, even if they haven't been very sexy so far, the 2010 appropriations could soon overtake the scandals that have taken place in the political world this year and become the sexiest story around.

My question: If this happens, will it be covered on TMZ as well as CNN and CSPAN?