WHAT GOV. MARK Sanford did well with his first budget, he has done even better with his second: He has made his priorities clear and been willing to eliminate those programs he considers least important and provide extra money for those he considers essential.

His latest proposal spells out what services he would “purchase,” rather than simply funding agencies. Legislators have long talked about such an approach but have never adopted it. This common-sense way of writing a budget makes it easier to tell how money is spent, helping policymakers decide how to direct resources and helping the public evaluate those decisions.

The budget also addresses important fiscal housekeeping matters, replenishing trust funds that were raided during the recession and reducing the use of one-time funding for ongoing programs to $50 million — the lowest point in more than a decade and a reduction of at least $80 million from this year.

And it revives many sound proposals that Mr. Sanford put forward last year, but that were rejected by the Legislature, from closing unneeded college campuses and consolidating overlapping state agencies to eliminating funding for some state agency lobbyists and reducing lottery advertising. But it also revives the governor’s worst ideas, such as reducing income taxes while the state still can’t meet many of its most important obligations.

To the extent that priorities can be measured in dollars, this budget shows that Mr. Sanford believes the state should put a higher priority on public education, public safety and social services. It would be hard to argue that those shouldn’t be our state’s priorities.

The budget increases funding for education, and makes it a larger portion of the state government. And it moves more money into a fund that gives more to poorer districts; that’s essential to providing an adequate education for all our children, although it’s not clear that it makes sense to move all of the specific pots of money the governor wants to move. But the increase isn’t as large as Mr. Sanford makes it look, and even with it, the state still would not spend as much on basic education needs such as teacher salaries and textbooks as state law requires.

The governor proposes smart innovations large and small. He provides “preventiveness grants” and makes changes in the Medicaid system to move the state somewhat from disease management to disease prevention. He eliminates the secret pots of money individual legislators direct to their pet projects, and allows each agency to decide how to dole out pay raises, rather than providing an across-the-board increase.

The budget also shows, at least in theory, that if you’re willing to abandon the status quo approach of funding agencies, you can provide better service for less money. One of Mr. Sanford’s favorite examples is the $1.6 million he saves by having the Department of Motor Vehicles take over the Department of Natural Resources’ job of issuing boat titles — a process that gives boat owners 12 times as many offices where they can conduct business, and lets them handle some matters over the Internet, just as can be done with cars.

It’s far too soon to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to such a massive conglomeration of proposals — and indeed, that would make less sense than evaluating the proposals individually. But what is clear is that this is an excellent place to begin a debate about how to allocate our state’s limited resources — a debate that, more than any other, defines our priorities.