Controversy about watchdog agency was all about politics, not policy.

Those who watched the budget negotiations dealing with the nearly $200 million reduction in state revenues might be confused. Many of my Republican colleagues would have the public believe the Legislature was unable to reach bipartisan agreement on a budget due to a small legislative office most people have never heard about.

The nonpartisan Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA) is tasked with finding efficiencies in various state agencies – a job carried out, in part, by several agencies including the Office of Fiscal and Program Review, the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, the state controller, the state auditor, as well as the legislative committees with direct oversight over each aspect of state government and spending.

In an initial committee amendment to the budget, OPEGA was slated to be merged with another office, OFPR, which carries out similar tasks, including drafting the state budget. When the budget hit the House floor, that proposal was amended to keep OPEGA independent, but reduce its funding like many other agencies in this budget.

So what was the problem? That’s a good question. The Democratic budget funded the office at $1.657 million over the biennium. Many Republicans wanted $1.765 million, as expressed in several amendments they offered the night the budget passed. So was it really $108,000 that prevented a bipartisan budget?

Of course not – particularly considering a separate bill will move through the Legislature to increase funding to OPEGA, and is likely to pass.

My friend, Rep. Jeremy Fischer, the House chair of the Appropriations Committee, often says budgets are a statement of priorities and beliefs. He is right. In household budgets, one decides what is essential to spend money on, and what is a priority to spend money on. The state is no different.

Then why were there hours – yes, hours – of floor debate, multiple amendments and harsh words over this one item? Was it really the most important piece of a budget that made $65 million in cuts to mental health services, mental retardation programs and programs to allow seniors to live in their home as opposed to a nursing home?

I submit my Republican colleagues wanted to focus the public’s eye, not on their true priorities, and on what made for a good sound bite: “Democrats want to cut watchdog agency.”

Of course they forgot to add – “so do we, just not as much.”

In truth, the vast majority of this budget was agreed upon by both parties. Ninety-eight percent of the Democratic and Republican budgets were the same. In that last two percent were those priorities Fischer talks about. While my Republican friends were railing at the horror of a cut to OPEGA, they quietly included in their budget a provision eliminating health care coverage for 22,000 individuals.

This number included working parents and our poorest citizens. They also proposed shutting the state down for three days and sending employees home without pay. This gimmick, a holdover from the McKernan administration, was floated by one Republican member who actually said, on the House floor, those who wouldn’t be paid would want the time off to go shopping.

Finally, while property taxpayers (from reduced school aid), small businesses, nonprofits, and health care providers felt the greatest pain in this budget, the Republican budget would have removed the provision that required the largest corporations to share the pain of this national economic downturn.

Republicans opposed reducing $5 million from the more than $200 million in state aid and tax breaks companies receive each year. Instead, they proposed to take away health care for people who need it most. That $200 million figure, by the way, came from our friends at OPEGA; along with a report that questioned whether the state is getting its money’s worth for its substantial investments in business.

So, in the next few weeks and again this fall, when hearing rhetoric about OPEGA, remember what really happened. Don’t be fooled by the bait and switch.

The budget was not about an agency that remains independent and may well receive additional funding. Rather, it was about a difference in priorities, like health care versus corporate welfare.

Unfortunately, some believe if they shout loud enough, one won’t look at differences in the budget proposals and they will not be held accountable for those choices.

I am willing to stand up for the budget I supported and show it in the light of day. It is imperfect – far from it – but it represents the priorities of Maine people. Given the lack of discussion by Republicans about what was really in their budget proposal, and their desire to talk about one minor difference, I’m unsure they are willing to hold their proposal up against the values of Maine people.

Rep. John Patrick, D-Rumford, represents House District 92: Andover, Byron, Roxbury, Rumford, Weld, Rangeley and Sandy River plantations, plus West Central Franklin and Madrid Township.
I submit my Republican colleagues wanted to focus the public’s eye, not on their true priorities, and on what made for a good sound bite: “Democrats want to cut watchdog agency.”

Of course they forgot to add – “so do we, just not as much.”