Perhaps the most contentious proposal targets unions in an attempt to save cities and towns at least $100 million annually in health insurance costs. “This is a very constructive compromise which appears to strike a balance between the best of the House and Senate plans,’’ said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed budget watchdog group. “Municipalities will save tens of millions of dollars, critical services and jobs will be protected, and municipal employees and retirees will continue to receive generous health benefits.’’
Unions, however, had no immediate comment.
Patrick has spoken favorably about the broad outlines of the proposal, but has not said whether he will sign this specific agreement.
He and lawmakers have described the entire state budget as among the most difficult in decades, because the state has been forced to close a $1.9 billion deficit that is mostly the result of the loss of $1.5 billion in federal stimulus money.
The budget includes no new taxes and instead cuts deeply across a range of state services, hitting the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. Patrick agreed to many of the cuts in his budget proposal released in January.
They include:
■ A cut in direct benefits to poor people, which will reduce the clothing allowance given to children on welfare.
■ A $4 million cut in the Department of Developmental Services, which would reduce services to 1,000 people.
■ Significant cuts to the state’s Medicaid program that will require the poor and the elderly to pay more for prescription drugs and other medical services.
Lawmakers also agreed on a plan to hire 300 new public defenders, reducing the state’s reliance on private lawyers to perform criminal defense work for the poor.
Patrick, who wanted to hire 1,000 new public defenders, has argued that they can do the job at a lower cost. Stephen M. Brewer, the Senate budget chief, described the compromise as “a sea change from the status quo.’’
