It was a throwaway sentence at the end of a four-paragraph Associated Press brief about how state Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, hopes to appeal to voters in his gubernatorial campaign.

"Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has pushed for an income tax increase to help fix the state's ailing budget. Brady says Illinois can't afford to raise taxes."

And that's pretty much the meat of the issue as it relates to the November election. The budget problem itself is far more complex, but from a campaign standpoint, Quinn says we must raise taxes and Brady says we can't. I wish it were only that simple.

The AP also reported last week that Quinn's budget plans include cutting up to 17,000 teaching positions, reducing state contributions to child care for low-income families and having fewer state troopers on the road. And that's the scenario even if the income tax increase goes through. These are the harsh realities of a state operating at a deficit approximated at $13 billion. You have to cut $2 billion in spending, raise taxes and still be far short of your stated goal.

I'm sure Brady's plan is more intricate than "no tax hike," and I'm not interested in spending a lot of time breaking down the governor's race, at least not in March. But I've been paying reasonably close attention to Illinois government since August 2002, and the budget picture has looked worse every day.

Everyone should share in this blame. There's very little turnover in Springfield, save for vacancies owing to death, retirement or indictment, and none of the big-ticket items our state can no longer afford are new initiatives. Public safety and public education have been high priorities as long as there's been students to teach and criminals to catch.

I examined the state's fiscal woes in a column last March, suggesting we turn the system on its ear by allowing taxpayers to choose, dollar for dollar, what part of the state budget their contributions would fund. Of course income tax is only part of the equation. There's also sales tax, vehicle registration fees, business licensing revenue and countless other ways the state takes in money. And still, we spend more than we earn.

What I fail to understand is how we as citizens can continue to tolerate a system that allows mass reduction of teaching and state police jobs while we still have well more than 100 state lawmakers earning six-figure salaries. The cost of running the government itself is such a bloated expense, how can we take lawmakers seriously when they begin to cut away at the budget?

The AP paraphrased a Quinn aide as follows: "The governor is generally trying to cut programs instead of eliminating them entirely, but there are exceptions. One example is halting all support for DuQuoin's World Trotting Derby, a major horse race."

It pains me we're at a point where I have to ask this question, but it's 2010, we're $13 billion in the hole and NOW we're considering eliminating support for a horse race? How has this derby continued to be publicly funded this long? Probably because it's a tourism thing that brings money to the local economy and to cut it would have a ripple effect...

Everything in the state budget is important to someone. And generally, a compelling case can be made for each line item. We're not all convinced each element is essential, but we all have our favorites. No one likes to see cuts (remember the state park closing fiasco of recent vintage), yet Illinois has proven it's impossible to keep everyone happy in perpetuity. Funding these priorities costs real money, money the state simply does not have.

There have been far too many stories in this newspaper alone of otherwise fiscally sound school districts forced to consider cuts simply because the state can't meet its own obligations. Payments to schools and social service agencies are horribly overdue and, despite all the noise on the ceiling in the last decade, in seems the final shoe still hasn't dropped.

No matter what I or anyone else writes, this ugly situation will continue to get uglier. The Republicans and Democrats will fight, one side saying we must make drastic changes, the other side calling such proclamations scare tactics. We will borrow more to try to cover the money we already owe, and the deficit will grow larger. It's going to take more than a rebounding national economy to fix the mess in Springfield, and even that hope seems a distant prayer.

Yet as much as I want to rail on the lawmakers for refusing to act earlier to prevent such disaster, I can't shake the feeling that some of the blame rests on voters for not forcing real change. Maybe the people in power conspired to keep themselves in those positions and keep us out of the loop. Either way, we are in serious trouble, and I don't know if anyone will be able to lead the state to safety.

• SCOTT T. HOLLANDis former associate editor of The Times but continues to contribute his column plus help with editing, writing and page design. He can be reached at scotth@mywebtimes.com.