It may be just us, but the tax-reform plan that Gov. Mark Sanford pitched this week seems a bit disconnected from the harsh fiscal realities that South Carolina must face. The plan would raise the per-pack tax on cigarettes to 61 cents and apply the 5 percent S.C. sales tax to lottery tickets, while reducing the S.C. income tax by an average 15 percent.

There's nothing wrong, really, with the plan - though overtaxing nicotine addicts who have no choice but pay continues to strike us as unfair. We have no problem taxing lottery tickets and doubt - despite what critics contend - that such would shrink ticket sales. The belief it's possible to buck astronomically unfavorable odds to win the big jackpots drives lottery sales. Regular players - the backbone of the program - aren't going to let a mere nickel per dollar "invested" stand between them and the chance to win big.

Sanford also isn't wrong to target the state income tax for reduction. The tax, as currently configured, hampers personal income growth and inhibits S.C. job growth. Marginal rates on individuals and businesses are too high.

So why can't we muster excitement for this proposal? Because in pitching it, Sanford seems oblivious to the state's most pressing financial needs. Consider:

The school-finance lawsuit against the state, now wending its way through circuit court in Colleton County, has exposed the weaknesses in the current slapdash S.C. school-finance system. Current law sends proportionally more state education money to poorer school districts but takes no account of local school property-tax money.

"Rich" counties such as Horry can increase local school taxes to tide education over when state support dwindles, as it has the past seven years. But poor counties, such as Colleton, could raise local school taxes by 100 mills or more and still net too little money to guarantee their kids good teachers, decent buildings and adequate textbooks and technology. Their taxable property isn't worth much. School board members who run poor districts rightly contend that the current law deprives their children of the minimally adequate education promised in state law.

Even if the state wins the lawsuit, most S.C. legislators understand that the current system is unfair and unsustainable. Why isn't this issue - which would require more state money for mitigation - also on Sanford's radar screen?

As re-established at Thursday's Coastal Carolina University forum on S.C. highway construction, the state's gasoline tax, one of the lowest in the nation, raises far too little money to allow the S.C. Department of Transportation to maintain the primary and secondary highways. Lest S.C. highways continue to molder and crumble, this has to change.

Ideally, the General Assembly would raise the gas tax enough to maintain and upgrade major roads, while mustering the courage to transfer responsibility for some secondary roads to counties and municipalities. Why isn't this problem - which only money can fix - on Sanford's radar screen?

The governor, to be fair, likely won't reveal his full view on how South Carolina should resolve these and other problems until January, when he presents his budget to the General Assembly. But it's worrisome that the glimpse he's given us thus far suggests he either is unaware of them or considers them unimportant.