Not much about the economy inspires confidence. It would be a mistake to add to that uncertainty with a state budget that depends too much on estimates.

And yet the budget being proposed by Gov. Linda Lingle relies at least in part on just that: estimates of the savings she hopes to accrue in collective bargaining talks ongoing with public-employee unions.

She knows she needs to close a $278 million gap over a two-year period, but the formula for achieving those savings remains undecided.

There are two things wrong with this approach. First, the public should have a role in the process of deciding how to balance the budget — what spending to cut and what revenue to raise. If it's left to the governor to square the budget later, after labor contracts are settled, then the public has little voice in it.

Second, it's unclear how much the governor's plan will save. Union contract provisions will complicate savings calculations; for instance, a laid-off employee could bump another, less senior and sometimes lower-paid worker.

The collective-bargaining plan, as currently penciled in, would involve some combination of furloughs and rollbacks of union pay and benefits. Both elements require consultation with unions before they're executed.

What's needed is a blueprint with more ink and less pencil. The governor should use the tools she has at her disposal — including cuts, layoffs, spending restrictions and tax and other revenue adjustments — to craft a budget that stands on firmer footing. If contract talks yield the concessions that Lingle wants, restoration of those cuts can then be made.

It's hard to argue with the governor's basic intent. She wants to balance the budget without layoffs and without tax increases, both of which would leave Hawai'i's economy languishing longer than necessary.

And she makes a strong argument — one that many taxpayers, including those facing job losses and pay cuts, can applaud. That is: In a time of extreme fiscal austerity, the sacrifice is borne most easily if it's shared. This means the labor union members, who have benefited in previous, fatter budget years, must absorb some of the pain, too.

But ultimately, getting the unions to that decision is an end point in the collective-bargaining process, not an assumption to make midstream.

Yet amid all this uncertainty, there are concrete, positive budget developments.

Both the administration and some in the Legislature are aligning behind the principle that the top tier of government should feel the pinch right along with the rank-and-file. Lingle proposes that pay increases for department heads, deputies, lawmakers and judges, due to take effect in July, should be suspended for two years. Also: Their current pay should be curbed to the same degree as any that the unions may accept. It's a sensible accommodation that, it's hoped, will help make union negotiations go more smoothly.

Until then, it's time to execute a reasoned blueprint for government operations. Taxpayers want confidence in government restored, and coming to terms with budget realities is the only way to do that.