Patrick might have to get used to making that argument over the next year. Supporters of the ballot question gathered enough signatures to clear a major hurdle to getting it on the 2008 ballot.
Carla Howell of the Committee For Small Government says there is plenty to cut in the state budget and the ballot question would give lawmakers an incentive to make reductions.
"They need to spend the money they have right and cut all the waste and the damaging and destructive programs out of the state government that do more harm than good," she said. "If they do that, we will have 20 times more than we need for roads and bridges."
Asked to name a damaging or destructive program that should be cut, Howell declined to answer, saying the burden is on lawmakers to justify each program.
Patrick said that while it is important to "demand that government be responsible and efficient and accountable" with tax dollars, it is unrealistic to think that the state can absorb the loss of $11 billion in annual income taxes - about 40 percent of its revenue - without dire consequences.
Patrick said the loss of revenue would also come at a time when the state is trying to find an estimated $15 to $19 billion the next two decades to fix the state's aging roads and crumbling bridges.
He also said he won't be pushing for a cut in the state income tax to 5 percent. Voters overwhelming approve the cut in 2000, but lawmakers froze it at 5.3 percent.
"Unless people are prepared to say they will do without public transportation, or they will do without an airport, or they are content to have the homeless population increase . . . or they are prepared frankly to have their property taxes shoot up even faster than they have, then we can't responsibly move toward lowering the rate of the income tax now," Patrick said.
"People talk about it being their money. They're right," he added. "But it's also their broken bridge and their broken road and their broken neighborhood and broken school."
