OUR STATE'S CURRENT fiscal crisis is due in large part to long-simmering problems with unrestrained and undisciplined spending practices. So we were glad to see that Republicans and Democrats in the House have come together to acknowledge that fact.

Unfortunately, they misunderstand how to fix the problem. Their proposal to limit the allowed uses for one-time money is a step in the right direction -- and indeed may well be the only step needed. But the heart of the proposal put forth by 79 of the 124 House members -- to artificially limit the amount of money that can be spent every year -- is a recipe for bad fiscal policy and amounts to disrespect for the very foundations of our system of self-government.

It is the job of the Legislature to decide how the state spends tax money and how much tax money it spends. This proposal would strip legislators of the second job, thereby constraining their ability to perform the first.

The primary considerations for how much to spend should be how much we need to spend, and how much is available. No matter how much we need to spend, we shouldn't spend more than we have (although legislators have, in effect, done just that for years). Likewise, we should not spend more than we need to. The bill before the House ignores both of those ideas.

Instead, it says that we will increase spending from year to year by the amount of inflation and population growth -- up to a maximum of 6 percent. The 6 percent cap on the cap means that, should our population and inflation grow more than that, we won't even keep up. In other words, we will have to reduce existing services.

But even without the cap on the cap, this idea still makes no sense in a state that is not meeting its basic obligations.

We don't spend enough money on poor school districts, and we don't even spend as much as we promised to improve failing districts. But with the cap, we couldn't increase that unless we decreased the amount of money going to rich districts. That might not be a bad idea, but it's not something the Legislature will do. Instead, it will continue to starve the poor districts, thus dooming our state to perpetual educational failure.

The same is true with a host of other areas where we fall short, from providing safe prisons and adequate mental health services for those who are a danger to others to hiring enough Highway Patrol troopers and SLED agents. If suddenly the economy improved enough to take care of these needs without a tax increase, this cap would prevent us from doing so.

The idea's supporters will say not to worry, they would allow the cap to be overridden in case of emergency by a supermajority vote. But that means a minority would be in the driver's seat, which obliterates one of the most fundamental principles of American representative democracy -- majority rule.

The idea of an artificial cap got a huge boost when Gov. Mark Sanford endorsed it last month. But consider what he has done since his election: He has spent half what his predecessor did on his transition; he pays his communications staff half what his predecessor did; he has eliminated the $80,000-a-year position of mansion director. Small steps, to be sure, but the type of discipline we need in government. He didn't do this because the law forced him to. He did it because it was the responsible thing to do. And he did it without tying the hands of future governors who might face a very different situation. Our legislators must do no less.