Gov. Patrick to the feds: Show me the money!

Governor Deval Patrick and four other influential Democratic governors pleaded their case yesterday for up to $1 trillion in federal assistance over the next two years, to help alleviate budget cuts, create jobs, and avoid inflicting irreversible damage to schools during a fiscal crisis.

"The assistance would be mammoth for us," Governor David Patterson of New York, which is facing a $15.4 billion deficit, said during an afternoon conference call with reporters.

Hoping that President-elect Barack Obama will use a federal stimulus package to dampen the steady stream of negative budget-cutting headlines, the governors said they were asking for $350 billion for infrastructure projects, $250 billion for education, $150 billion for middle-class tax cuts, and $250 billion in funding for programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment benefits.

The outline of a $1 trillion infusion of federal funds over two years, an outline they said had not been endorsed by the incoming Obama administration, is higher than levels previously dis cussed. It is unclear what the final price tag would be and what restrictions would be placed on the money.

"We have had several conversations with senior members of the transition team, and they are very receptive to the idea and sensitive to the importance of not losing ground in educational progress," Patrick said. "But this is not a done deal."

The governors have not come to a consensus on how the funding should be distributed, but Patrick said that for education and infrastructure, "population is as simple and straightforward a way as any."

Massachusetts makes up about 2 percent of the nation's population, which would mean it would receive $12.7 billion of the $600 billion proposed for education and infrastructure projects.

The federal money would act as a two-year bridge to allow states to continue essential services, the governors said, not an invitation to increase spending. They argued that the focus on education is warranted because schools cannot sustain steep budget cuts without adversely affecting students.

UPDATE: From the Globe.