Gov. Linda Lingle had a most unenviable task before her this month as she and her staff tried to come up with a state budget and financial plan in the face of plunging state revenue.

In fact, as they well know, the task was even grimmer than it appears. The budget Lingle unveiled was based on the current forecast from the Council on Revenues, which almost surely will be lowered even more when the council meets next month.

So why not write a budget based on what surely is going to be reality rather than on today's somewhat outdated numbers? Part of the answer is legalistic: The administration is required to use the council's projections as they stand at the moment.

It wouldn't be kosher to assume greater income than the council projects (that kind of pie-in-the-sky guessing is how they balanced budgets in the old days). So it is equally important not to assume lower numbers until the council actually produces them.

Part of this is psychological. The state budget is big enough these days (more than $22 billion over two years, when all funds are counted) to be an economic force in and of itself. The economy responds dynamically to what the state says it will do with its budget. If the budget is written on an excessively pessimistic foundation, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Unlike managers in many private-sector companies these days, Lingle and her team continued a decades-old "warm body" policy. That is, no layoffs. True, many positions would be eliminated, but the warm bodies on the payroll would be kept on in one form or another. Most personnel savings would come from eliminating positions that are not filled today.

Unhappily, if the economy continues to sour, that approach may become untenable. This will be particularly true if some of the accounting swaps Lingle proposes don't fly. She proposes taking money from a variety of special funds, such as the beverage deposit special fund, a wireless "911" fund and the so-called rainy-day fund.

While dipping into the rainy-day fund may pass muster, at least legally, there are constitutional and policy questions about using other special funds for general spending. If those funds cannot be used, the budget hole suddenly becomes much deeper.

Finally, Lingle is certain to run into a buzzsaw over her proposal to eliminate just two programs entirely: Healthy Start (for newborns) and adult dental services. Supporters of these programs will argue vehemently that they represent investments that save the state money over the long term by avoiding unnecessary social costs.

The enduring truth of state budget-making is that programs are easy to start but almost impossible to stop.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.