That clatter emanating from the Capitol is the sound of the budgetary can being kicked down the road.

The Legislature seems determined to keep all its options open for balancing the budget during the nation's, and the state's, most challenging financial recession in decades.

But Senate Bill 1626 should not be one of them. The Senate yesterday kept alive this bill, which seeks an easy way out of tough budgetary choices that should be confronted head-on.

SB 1626 originally sought to divert the half-percentage point added to the general excise tax for the fixed-rail project into the state's general fund. Following an outcry by city officials and proponents of rail, the Senate is trying to soften the blow by turning the measure into a $150 million loan to the state from the transit fund.

Here's the "softening": The Senate Ways and Means Committee has specified that the borrowed cash would be exchanged for $250 million in general obligation bonds, which the state ordinarily issues for financing capital improvement projects. The bill, as amended yesterday, also would bar taking any city funds until cash from the bonds is held in escrow and would require city approval before making the swap.

This is still questionable budgetary policy. Essentially the state would be borrowing money to cover operating expenses, something that it's not supposed to do. Worse, it's borrowing for statewide purposes from an account set up for a specific purpose, and funded exclusively by O'ahu taxpayers.

Even though the city stands to gain money in the deal, Mayor Mufi Hannemann voiced concern in his testimony that the swap would make the local financing of the rail project seem insecure. It may make authorities in Washington less inclined to pledge the federal dollars Honolulu hopes to receive. Several committee members yesterday echoed that concern — and they're right.

The economy is not going to rebound quickly, and lawmakers could find themselves trying to tap the rail fund repeatedly when budgetary gaps inevitably open up again.

That's because the plan fails to deal with the fiscal crisis in the only responsible way: restricting spending to the most essential needs.

The hard fact of a shrinking economy is that it demands that leaders find a way to live within the state's more limited means. Playing a budgetary shell game is not the solution.