Here's a bit of fun number-crunching. Right now, President Bush has promised to veto seven Democratic spending bills--including the Labor-HHS-Education bill--and sign five others, on the grounds that he wants to rein in spending.
So, CBPP checked this out and found that the seven bills Bush is likely to veto will actually cost less, when you adjust for inflation and population growth, than they did in 2002-06, when Republicans ran Congress. And the five bills he's planning on signing into law will actually cost more. Now granted, many conservatives don't think spending bills should be adjusted for population growth, although I don't see how else you'd adjust them without making cuts.