There's no shortage of ideas for how hard-pressed state governments across the nation should deal with the budget deficits that are getting worse as the economy spirals downward and revenues fall. Considerably less abundant are good ideas for doing so.

For example, as The Associated Press reported in the Sunday Valley News, a number of states -- including Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts and Illinois -- are thinking about selling or leasing toll roads, parks, lotteries and even airports in a desperate bid to get quick infusions of cash. This strikes us as an example of the short-term, quick-fix outlook that got the nation into such trouble to begin with. Selling or leasing public assets may make sense in some instances, but the worst time to consider doing so is under the gun of a fiscal crisis. These are the sort of decisions that ought to be made when lawmakers can calmly weigh the benefits and disadvantages, not when their judgment may be clouded by the lure of quick cash from private investors who may or may not act in the public interest.

The same sort of dynamic may be at work in New Hampshire, where the state's budget shortfall is estimated to be $100 million in the current fiscal year. Gov. John Lynch has ruled out an income or sales tax, which has encouraged proponents of expanded gambling to propose everything from a race track with video slot machines at Rockingham Park to state-owned casinos as ways to increase revenue. Again, it strikes us that if the state is going to plunge into gambling in a significantly bigger way, it ought not to do so under the pressure of a severe recession. That additional revenue could have significant social costs attached that might require more state spending in the future.

To lawmakers and state officials, such objections must have the faint ring of armchair quarterbacking. They are the ones facing the hard decisions, after all. But the priorities seem clear enough. As New Hampshire Senate President Sylvia Larsen notes, whatever cuts are adopted must be made with the idea of ensuring that basic vital services continue to be provided, especially to the neediest and most vulnerable of residents. To our mind, a second priority is to avoid cuts now that will require costly initiatives in the future to reverse. For instance, it might be better to cut back on outside consultants than to lay off state workers whose skills might be hard to replicate when the job market improves again, as it inevitably will.

A prerequisite to intelligent budget cutting, of course, is to have the fullest picture possible of what's required. To that end, Vermont's legislative leadership may be on the right track in considering taking a recess either soon after convening or in mid-session. That would permit lawmakers to acquire more accurate revenue forecasts and to see how the huge federal stimulus package promised by the incoming Obama administration would affect the state's budget picture. This is appealing on two fronts. If the quarterly state revenue forecasts continue to fall, the problem may be much bigger than the $200 million shortfall now projected for the next fiscal year; it makes little sense for lawmakers to predicate a budget on information that may soon be outdated. And necessary cuts in state spending can be better targeted and coordinated if lawmakers know how much federal aid is in the offing and where it will be concentrated. Cutting smarter may be a way to avoid cutting deeper.