The Boston Globe is reporting that the police unions have amassed 81 votes in the House to restore the Quinn benefits cut out entirely in the budget submitted for consideration by the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Chris Fallon, a Democrat from Malden, is the chief sponsor of the amendment.

“I don’t know if you can emphasize enough the impacts of having an educated police force,” said Representative Christopher G. Fallon, a Malden Democrat and lead sponsor of the amendment to restore funding.

“I don’t think the state, given this economic time, should be telling people: ‘By the way we’re going to be cutting your pay. We’re gong to be cutting an incentive,’ ” he said.

Fallon reportedly shouted in a public venue at Speaker Bob Deleo about the Quinn Bill cut after Ways and Means released their budget. And it appears that Fallon has hit a $52 million dollar jackpot, as he has 79 co-sponsors, with one other Rep. filing an amendment that provides Quinn funding at a slightly lower number.

The number of lawmakers who signed onto the amendment demonstrates the political clout that police unions still carry. Within two days, the unions were able to get 80 House lawmakers, including several Republicans, to sign onto two amendments that would fund the program at $51.2 million.

House Chair of Ways and Means Charlie Murphy correctly points out that restoration of any funding cut in his budget would require further cuts elswhere, or additional revenues to pay for the restored benefit.

Representative Charles A. Murphy, chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, said that “we’ll have a debate on the issue,” but that other programs may have to be cut if the Quinn Bill funding is restored.

“The practical effect is for us to fund $52 million; that’s $52 million not going to, well, pick a program,” Murphy said yesterday. “It all comes down to: ‘How you going to pay for it, folks? What are you going to cut so you can restore it?’ The whole thing has been a balancing act.”

The Globe apparently did not ask Rep. Fallon how such a benefit should be funded. No reference is made to a specific proposal for funding this benefit, although many tax amendments have been filed. There is still a long way to go on the issue of what form the House budget will ultimately take, keeping in mind that the House budget revenue number is considered to be too high, and will likely be reduced by Senate budget writers. That will leave less room for restoration of any cuts without bringing new revenues to the table.