You might wonder about the difficulty lawmakers are having in Augusta with the debate over the size of this fall’s bond package. News reports say Democrats want a package worth approximately $94 million; Republicans think it should be set at $84 million. Rather than debate over it endlessly, a reasonable conclusion would be that they should split the difference and put it out to voters.

But the issue is much more complicated than this. Democrats, for instance, already have dropped their proposal from $120 million while Republicans have barely budged. And Republicans know that the Baldacci administration is planning another bond request, for land purchases, next spring and they want to limit the amount of debt this fall. There are other complicating issues, but there is also room for agreement on what amounts less to ideology than to budgeting.

First, there is broad agreement on the importance of funding transportation – highways and bridges, rails and airports, local projects statewide. The shame of it is that both sides agree to too little – Republicans have suggested $63.5 million; Democrats, $58.3 million. These are well below what the governor requested, $75 million, and what the department thought was needed, $120 million. The current proposals surrender the chance to meet previously agreed-upon improvements such as for arterial roads and risk that the nearly 1,000 bridges in Maine nearing the end of their (under-maintained) lives will produce surprises as the Waldo-Hancock Bridge did recently. Given budget constraints, lawmakers would do better to side toward the GOP proposal on this one.

There is some disagreement between the bonds over education, and Republicans should find space in their version of the bond for two items they’ve left out – the revolving school renovation fund, at $5 million, and support for libraries and arts and humanities councils, $1.5 million. Both are good investments to avoid much larger costs later, in terms of physical repairs to buildings and opportunities lost to Maine residents. Both would win popular support in November.

The major disagreement between the parties is over a parks and environmental bond, with Democrats wanting to spend $12.5 million and Republicans, zero. Some of what is in the proposal – drinking-water systems, water pollution control facilities – are as much infrastructure as environment and are regular investments the state makes in itself, mostly via federal mandate. The Democratic bond question would also include $5 million for capital improvements to state and municipal parks, which is no doubt needed. But Republicans are correct to point out that the governor has indicated he wants a substantial bond next spring on another environmental issue, replenishing the Land for Maine’s Future fund, although he has yet to set a price on that.

Without knowing how much they will ask the state to bond in the spring, Democrats would do better to delay the environmental bond this fall and pair it with the LMF bond next spring so that voters have a better chance to assess how much they want to spend on an overall environmental bond package. All are popular programs but the total debt level matters. Letting voters see in November only a small percentage of the total contemplated for the environment is less than full disclosure.

Lawmakers will want to tinker further with their bond packages, in part because that is what lawmakers do. Though they still have many details to work out, the competing plans are similar enough so that the Legislature has several opportunities for agreement and for presenting voters with a responsible bond package.