Gov. Ed Rendell and many in legislative leadership have talked themselves blue in the face about our state's "scarce resources" and the "difficult times" we face.

The budget they signed off on seems, on the surface, to reflect Pennsylvania's dire situation.

The cuts — to libraries and parks and social programs serving those with autism, mental health problems and family crises — are severe and, according to them, necessary to deal with a $1.2 billion deficit.

Schools are squeezed. Many state employees could be sent packing.

Things sound really, really bad.

And then comes news from state Rep. Curt Schroder, a Chester County Republican, that this year's spending plan includes $100 million in discretionary spending for legislators — a return of so-called "walking around money," or WAMs.

Cut education first?

Rendell managed to win an extra $250 million, or 4.5 percent, for public schools for K-12 instruction. But he and legislative leaders have indicated they could dip into that if the fed doesn't cough up $850 million in expected funding.

He's said nothing of eliminating WAMs. Or of scrapping a separate move to boost state borrowing by $600 million for construction projects handpicked by Rendell and legislators.

"I don't understand how the governor, who claims to be a champion of education, would target schools first in the event of a shortfall," Schroder said. "I would think he'd be more concerned about our students than protecting legislative play money."

Rendell, meantime, blamed lawmakers for the reappearance of WAMs this year.

"It was insisted upon by the Legislature. It was part of the arrangement," Rendell told reporters. "Again, if I were king, they wouldn't be there, but I'm not."

Pet projects

Whoever is responsible, it is certainly true that much of this money goes to worthwhile projects — Little League, fire halls, fall fairs.

That's not the point.

The problem is that the money is controlled by legislative leaders who use it to reward the lawmakers who are faithful to the caucuses, who give them the floor votes they need.

And the process by which legislators decide the worthiness of each project is as clear as mud. If you go looking in the budget document, you won't find a list of where the money's going, either.

Doling out grants in their districts, though, gives the lawmakers an advantage the next time an election rolls around. It's incumbency protection.

"We call it press-release economics," said Nathan A. Benefield, director of policy research for the conservative Commonwealth Foundation.

He identified more than $93 million in WAMs — $10.6 million for "urban development," for example, and $2.4 million for "cultural activities." Another $500,000 will go to zoos.

Fine initiatives, all of them.

But when as many as 1,000 state workers could lose their jobs? Really?

Bad timing

This week, coincidentally enough, marked the fifth anniversary of the notorious pay raise of 2005 — a watershed moment in Pennsylvania politics that got dozens of legislators booted from office.

Many reformers elected in the wake of the pay raise — and even incumbents damaged by that backlash — vowed to end the practice of awarding WAMs, calling it wasteful.

And yet WAMs are alive and well.

The inclusion of them in the budget really serves only two purposes: to get lawmakers re-elected, and to remind the rest of us that while a lot has changed in five years, a lot hasn't.

tmurse@lnpnews.com