Based on the talk coming out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania taxpayers might be thinking that a chasm exists between Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell's 2007-08 budget proposal and what Republican lawmakers think spending during the coming fiscal year ought to be.

If the taxpayers have such a perception, they haven't really followed the budget story. The fact is that, as of now, all of the predictions about a heated budget debate over the next five or six weeks involve but a mere $500 million, not billions.

In a scenario of projected 2007-08 state spending totaling in the $27 billion range, the gap between what Democrats want and what Republicans now seem willing to agree to does not indicate the coming emergence of a cataclysmic fiscal meltdown and a protracted state government shutdown.

But some of the rhetoric emanating from the state capital during the coming weeks might indicate such possibilities, despite developments this week.

Taxpayers should not allow themselves to be fooled.

"What we are getting back from our caucus members is they do not want to continue the outstanding spending of the past few years," said Rep. Mario Civera of Delaware County, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.

If that's the case, the question must be asked why Republicans aren't proposing to spend much less than the $27.3 billion budget plan Rendell has put forth.

The Republican alternative to what the governor has proposed totals $26.8 billion — certainly no monument to fiscal austerity.

From state taxpayers' vantage point, the main issue swirling around the budget is not the final number but, instead, how many of Rendell's proposed tax increases the legislature will approve. One of the proposed hikes is a 1 percentage point increase — to 7 percent — in the state sales tax.

However, some Democrats now are saying that, with better-than-expected tax collections, the new budget can be balanced without that additional revenue stream.

Less certain at this stage is the legislature's thinking regarding significant fee and tax hikes to provide additional money for transportation, health care and other initiatives.

The fate of the existing $500 million budget gap will hinge in part on lawmakers' success at preserving their own favored initiatives and programs, despite House lawmakers' decision Tuesday to withdraw scores of budget amendments.

Make no mistake, lawmakers, amid this year's budget exercise, will use the phrase "in the taxpayers' best interests" often to try to justify their respective budget stances. However, if the General Assembly was focused fully on taxpayers' best interests, lawmakers would have no reluctance returning the money in their closely guarded legislative surplus account to the state treasury.

When that account became public in August 2005, it contained $135 million. If that total is anywhere near that today, it represents more than one-fifth of the difference between the budget figures being advanced by Rendell and the legislative Republicans.

At this juncture, it also can be pointed out that the General Assembly acted in ways very out of touch with the taxpayers' best interests when it approved middle-of-the-night pay raises in July 2005 and, several years earlier, set the stage for a serious pension-funding crisis that still threatens commonwealth taxpayers.

As part of the budget debate, lawmakers also ought to be discussing ways of avoiding the negative impact on taxpayers that looms in connection with the irresponsible pension grab that has gotten so much publicity over the past year.

Unfortunately, no one — including members of Butler County's state legislative contingent — has been speaking out about that.

Every Pennsylvania resident should watch this annual budget exercise and their representatives' performance in that process. But the first thing to keep in mind is that, with about six weeks still remaining before the June 30 budget-passage deadline, the prime concern among lawmakers isn't going to be the total amount of money that will be spent next fiscal year but, rather, ensuring their own particular best interests within the budget package.

The rhetoric up to now hasn't honestly depicted the budget process as it really exists.