No one would be surprised if legislators, looking at a budget vote that included $60 million in new taxes, had an eye on the next election, wondering how their support for such a budget would look to voters. The simplest explanation is the most accurate in this case: Lawmakers this year, at a time of budget shortfalls, had to fund the promises of previous legislatures, which approved a cumulative $480 million in tax cuts that were not sustainable. The current majority proposal is an unglamorous attempt by Augusta to keep its word.

What sorts of promises were made? An agreement to compensate prison guards more fairly. Improved security in Maine’s courts. Money for college scholarships and for an unfunded liability in the state’s retiree health insurance. More for General Purpose Aid to Education and money to match the huge support to fund domestic violence programs. A pledge to expand the state’s technical colleges and to continue to expand its investment in research and development. The money for these ideas had to come from somewhere, and the somewhere was identified by Gov. King last January – leveling the meals tax at 7 percent and raising the tobacco tax by 20 cents, 6 cents less than what the governor originally proposed.

None of the programs that attracted unanimous support when first announced got nearly enough. The bill to fund domestic violence programs, for instance, gets $4.2 million instead of the $9.6 million anticipated when it was drafted. But this portion of the budget, called Part 2, is a responsible document in that its ongoing expenses are met with ongoing and not one-time revenues, its costs aren’t pushed onto future legislators and there seems to be none of the gimmickry that got lawmakers into such trouble a decade ago when revenues constricted.

This has been contrasted by a minority proposal from House Republicans to avoid taxes by issuing a broad 1 percent cut in state agencies. Getting rid of taxes by issuing a decree that everyone will work more efficiently is a tempting notion, but not a responsible one.

If lawmakers believed that some or all agencies could operate as effectively with less money, the time to test their idea was in January, at the beginning of the session, not in June, during its final days. House members who are serious about their plan should support the majority now and turn their proposal into an agency review for the next session to see what sort of savings are actually available.

The lowered revenues and open feuding between caucuses during much of the session has made for a difficult budget year, but in Part 2 anyway lawmakers have produced a plan that serves Maine well. Its value should be remembered during the next election season.