OUR STATE IS BETTER off collecting $170 million a year in extra cigarette taxes than collecting the same amount of money in income taxes. Higher cigarette taxes reduce teen smoking, and lower income taxes can stimulate the economy.

For that reason alone, Gov. Mark Sanford's proposal to swap a higher cigarette tax for an income tax credit, and eventually a reduction in the income tax rate, makes sense. An added bonus is that he would phase in the income tax reduction as our economy grows. So while the state would eventually collect less in taxes than it would without this swap, it would collect more for the first few years, when the cash infusion is vital.

Using the temporary increase in revenues to prop up Medicaid is smart because $170 million in state spending would generate around $380 million in federal matching funds, for a total of $550 million.

Gov. Sanford's proposal is also encouraging for two reasons unrelated to smoking or Medicaid.

First, it means his proposal to completely eliminate the income tax is off the table, at least for now. The idea of reducing the tax in order to stimulate investment is certainly worth considering. But doing away with the income tax would force us to depend much more heavily than we already do on the sales and property taxes. The problem with that is the same as replacing a three-legged stool with a two-legged model. It can work if you balance it correctly, but it's tricky.

Second, the governor's proposal shows the kind of leadership that we haven't seen much of in our state in years. Members of Mr. Sanford's own party had made it clear that they opposed any cigarette tax increase, even if it involved a swap that resulted in a net tax reduction. And the political reality is that it takes courage to push a plan that leaders of your party oppose -- all the more so when you know you need the support of those same people for other initiatives you might pursue later.

But Gov. Sanford was willing to acknowledge that we need to fully fund Medicaid, and that the House budget didn't do that, and to try to come up with a way to both solve that problem and deal with what he sees as a larger problem. Whether you agree with his idea or not, it's a refreshing change from the "pretend the problem doesn't exist" approach taken by so many politicians.

Having said all that, we really don't see a need to do the swap. Yes, it would be much better than the inadequate approach the House has adopted, and if it's the best we can do, we should do it. But it shouldn't be the best we can do. With the massive shortfall we face, we don't need to be locking in future tax cuts. We need to either eliminate those government services that legislators consider unnecessary -- something they have refused to even consider doing -- or else we need to just raise the cigarette tax.

This is not, as House leaders call it, a "huge tax increase." Yes, $170 million is a lot of money. But look closely: It's an extra tax of 2.85 cents per cigarette. An extra tax paid by people who are shelling out $3 a pack for a 100 percent discretionary product. If it were paid by the state's entire adult population, it would come out to $56.67 a year each. Paid by the 750,000 smokers, it's $226.67 a year, $18.89 a month, or 63 cents a day -- the cost of four cigarettes. Anyone who thinks it's too "huge" a tax increase to pay has a simple option: Stop smoking. Then the rest of us won't have to pay for their medical care -- through Medicaid or higher insurance rates -- when the cigarettes start eating away their lungs.