In a recent letter, Rep. Terry Hayes, D-Buckfield, cited an apparent editorial contradiction:

Though we’ve said cuts are needed for Maine’s budget woes, we oppose bills like her LD 1878, which shrinks government notices published in newspapers, and move full versions into a new state online database.

Shorter notices could save some $200,000, Hayes said, insinuating we speak from both sides of our mouth.

In our mind, however, there is no contradiction.

Our thinking is about the significant difference between cutting spending and finding savings.

There are no cost estimates for the database, or the bill’s planned telephone system for non-Internet users to access the full notice. LD 1878 may tout cuts, but without knowing its expenses, it cannot promise savings.

Government must provide a high level of service to citizens, but in as efficient and inexpensive a manner as possible.

Anyone can just cut spending, an approach that’s bipartisan, popular and completely irrational, because if finding savings were that simple, there would never be budget deficits. We know this isn’t the case.

Maine’s shortfall could now be double the initial $95 million figure, according to new projections. While deep cuts can bring fiscal certainty, we urge legislators to resist cuts for cutting’s sake, and recognize when cuts also carry costs.

LD 1878 is an example. (Yes, it would interrupt revenue to newspapers. This contradiction we cannot dispute.) But this principle extends deeper, especially to proposed cuts to social and health services relating to Medicaid.

Medicaid is under attack. Some $45 million in state funds, and $140 million to providers is on the federal chopping block. Coupled with Maine’s shortfall, these reductions have mobilized a legislative blockade in Augusta.

Yet there’s a problem. In solving the state shortfall, some providers say, state-proposed provider cuts would prevent non-Medicaid patients from receiving services. Tri-County Mental Health in Lewiston, for example, says the state cuts could essentially turn the agency into a provider for only MaineCare recipients.

Here’s where a cut could carry cost. Some patients could stop receiving services, like mental health counseling. An untreated schizophrenic cannot be depended upon to seek treatment reliably if their case manager disappears.

Instead of reporting for outpatient care, they’re much more likely to become a burden on other public services, such as hospitals or, in some cases, the jails. So it’s a cost shift – taxpayers pay anyway, but from another pocket.

And even less desirable is the prospect of non-MaineCare patients, once their services are cut, seeing MaineCare as their only option and finding ways to enroll. This would burden an already expensive and threatened program.

Not to mention leave Maine’s budget even more peril.

We want an efficient government and a balanced budget. This won’t come from making cuts, without considering whether they actually save. So there’s no contradiction in our stance.

Rather, we recognize the hard job ahead, and suggest a guiding principle:

Don’t just make cuts. Find savings, instead.