Unable to reconcile sharp ideological rifts within the Caucus, the House Democratic leadership is leaning strongly against offering an alternative to the Republican budget next week for the first time since the party lost its majority in the chamber in 1995. 
Senior Democrats cautioned that a final decision on tactics may not be made until next Tuesday, when the House is scheduled to take up the budget debate. The party failed to offer an alternative when the GOP budget was marked up yesterday, proposing only a series of amendments. 
But leadership sources also conceded that there appears to be little chance that Democrats will be able to produce a budget blueprint that would receive support from a significant majority of the Caucus. 
"There's a serious discussion going on as to what our options are," Caucus Chairman Martin Frost (Texas) said. The no budget alternative is "certainly one of them." 
Without a budget, Democratic leaders would lose a key instrument used to underscore differences with the GOP. 
The budget typically gives Democrats a set of issues on which to run, and the 30-second ads that are run against Republican incumbents often refer to votes taken against the "priorities" outlined in the Democratic blueprint. 
"If you don't offer it, you don't have [those issues] on the table," one leadership aide said. "All you can say is that you're against what the Republican candidate did. But you don't have anything to say you're for." 
Insiders said Rep. John Spratt (S.C.), the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, remains committed to reaching a consensus plan. The sources said Spratt is concerned that party moderates, who tend to be more politically vulnerable as a group than their liberal brethren, may be hung out to dry if they can't vote for the GOP plan and lack a Democratic blueprint to rally around instead. 
Tom Kahn, Spratt's staff director at Budget, declined to characterize the current status of discussions among Democratic leaders. He would say only that Congress is in a "very difficult budget environment" at the moment and that Spratt is "aggressively seeking" input from all corners of the Caucus. 
"He works in a collaborative way," Kahn said. "He wants to know what the will of the Caucus and the leadership is before acting. And he's listening, and will follow it." 
Spending constraints have essentially put Democratic leaders in a bind. There is not enough money available to fund the party's priorities, which include far greater spending on education and a prescription drug benefit, and at the same time protect money that Members believe should be set aside strictly for Social Security. 
As it stands, one Democratic leadership aide said, the allegation that the Republican budget taps the so-called Social Security surplus - to the tune of about $1 trillion over the next 10 years - is so far the only thing the party has going for November. But suggesting that less money be spent elsewhere would shortchange the various interests they claim to represent. 
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a Chief Deputy Whip, charged that the GOP had not left enough money available to deal with pressing priorities, such as prescription drugs and school construction. 
"It's ridiculous to ask us to deal with it," she said. "We are not the majority here. I don't think we're obligated to offer a budget here. We are obligated to present priorities." 
Internal polls indicate to party strategists that seniors are far more likely than other groups to vote in the midterm election. Indeed, the Democrats' commitment to using Social Security in the elections is so strong that Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) has been trying to force a floor debate on a GOP plan - just so the Democrats can attack it. 
Such is the squeeze on the Democrats, however, that at a Tuesday meeting where Spratt presented the dilemma to the leadership, Democrats considered whether they should go ahead and propose the spending they want while blaming the majority for any inadvertent incursions into the sacrosanct retirement program. 
That option drew howls of disapproval from many of the Members present, participants in the meeting said. The move "would take a huge, huge issue off the table," one suggested. 
In the absence of a unified Democratic budget, Members will be asked to consider a number of proposals from the Caucus' various coalitions, including the conservative Blue Dog Coalition, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus. 
As it has every time in the past, the Blue Dog submission will focus on "fiscal discipline," an expression that is not likely to be uttered when the progressives and the CBC present their plans. None of these proposals is likely to garner more than mild support on the floor. 
Last year's $1.4 trillion tax cut is the dog that hasn't barked yet. The Democrats blame the tax reduction for fiscal woes, but the leadership continues to forsake efforts within the Caucus to roll it back - even in a budget document that will have only symbolic value. 
Party leaders continue to insist the tax cut is not on the table because President Bush has taken it off. And while they have repeatedly said the government should have reverted to the budget plan introduced last year by the Democrats, who outlined far less tax reduction, they recoil at any suggestion that this action would amount to a tax increase. 
"Our argument is that [Republicans] ought to sit down with us and try to figure out how to save some money - something they are so far not willing to do," said one senior Gephardt aide. 
House Democrats have resisted tying themselves to the plan the Senate's Democratic majority will eventually offer, recognizing that 57 Members of that chamber voted last year for a budget that included the tax cut. 
That means Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) would have to either use basically the same budget framework as last year or get seven Democrats - most facing difficult races this November - to switch their votes. 
John Feehery, a spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), suggested that if Democrats decline to offer an alternative budget next week, it will be because they are afraid the agenda they would outline would be unpopular with the voters. 
"The question is, do they have a secret plan to slash defense spending and increase taxes?" Feehery asked. "That must be the way they plan to solve this." 
Gephardt has pointed out to Members that it is far from unprecedented for a House minority to not offer its own budget, noting that when the GOP was last in the minority it had on several occasions either introduced budgets that failed to garner support from a majority of Members on the floor or declined to offer an alternative at all. 
"There's ample precedent for not [offering an alternative]," a senior Gephardt aide said. But he cautioned, "That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it."