Most Pennsylvania residents probably would agree with John M. Perzel, speaker of the state House of Representatives, that having an additional 10,000 police officers in the commonwealth would have a positive impact on reducing crime.

But details of the proposal announced on Sept. 11 by Perzel for putting 10,000 additional police officers on the streets statewide by 2010 are not without cause for skepticism. In addition, the plan raises questions about how state residents' tax money is being managed by politicians in the state capital.

Grounds for skepticism regarding Perzel's plan, which would dedicate nearly $225 million in state support by the end of the decade, is the county and municipal funds that would have to be dedicated to the program.

Counties, municipalities and, even, school districts often complain about state and federal mandates that are unfunded or only partially funded by the higher levels of government. In regard to Perzel's plan, it's easy to envision counties and municipalities being unable or unwilling to provide 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively, as a match to state money, as Perzel desires.

Perzel's plan envisions the state's first-year commitment to be funded by reducing legislative and executive branch administration budgets. The question that raises, if that money is available for Perzel's proposal now, why wasn't it tapped in the past for other worthy initiatives, including improving those already in place?

With Perzel being willing to spend so much for his idea, it must be presumed that there is much more surplus money available that is not being spent to bolster important, existing programs.

"The commonwealth has an obligation to protect its citizens from threats, both foreign and domestic," Perzel said. "We also have an obligation to keep our state budget balanced and responsible.

"I designed this proposal to balance these obligations. Budgets are about funding your priorities first, and I believe the safety and security of our families, children and seniors should be one of our state's highest priorities."

Funding without a matching-funds requirement would demonstrate more sincerity on the part of Perzel toward actually achieving his objective, rather than merely having a talking point for his current re-election campaign.

The House Speaker talked tough in announcing his law-and-order-themed plan on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"We are here today to send a clear message to the drug-dealing thugs, the illegal gun pushers and all those responsible for terrorizing our neighborhoods and communities: Your days are numbered and we, the families of Pennsylvania, are taking back our streets," Perzel said. "We are taking back our streets, taking back the night and taking away your freedom to make victims of the innocent."

But Perzel ignored the fact that his plan can't become reality until it is passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, and there's a good chance that it won't be.

The speaker apparently doesn't expect to encounter difficulty. However, he is the same House speaker who didn't envision any obstacles to taxpayer acceptance of the legislature's July 2005 pay-raise vote, which instead triggered a firestorm of taxpayer protest that led to repeal of the raise and resulted in the primary election defeats of a number of incumbents.

Perzel was right in putting his idea on the table for consideration. The plan is worthy of exploration.

But to think that counties and municipalities are going to enthusiastically embrace eventual spending that will challenge their budgets — probably in a more costly way with each passing year — and to think state taxpayers aren't going to be curious about the source of the money Perzel intends to spend, indicates naivete on the part of the veteran lawmaker.

According to Perzel, the combination of state and local resources that he envisions will provide $450 million to strengthen police forces and to fight crime in the commonwealth. With the $225 million in state money that Perzel is proposing, that means outlays totaling $225 million from counties and municipalities.

No wonder county and municipal representatives were not lined up at their lawmakers' doors on Sept. 12 to urge quick approval of the Perzel idea.