THIS IS a critical time for Gov. Mark Sanford, as we approach a legislative session in which some monumental decisions must be made. And last week, he wasn’t using that time very well.

He spent three days pushing his latest tax proposal. That proposal, seen in a vacuum — which is unfortunately the only way we can see it at this time — leaves much to be desired.

Essentially, he would increase the cigarette tax nearly to the national average, apply the sales tax to state lottery tickets and lower the income tax by 15 percent.

Raising the cigarette tax is a great idea, so good one there. And exempting the lottery from the sales tax is outrageous. And our income tax is absurdly regressive — you pay the top rate if you make $12,000 a year — and the governor’s motives in cutting it are pure. He sincerely believes this would stimulate the state’s economy, and he may be right.

So much for the upside. The downside is that the whole plan is a hothouse flower. It seems to have been grown in an environment completely sealed off from the real world.

His plan doesn’t address the drastic shortfalls in state revenue. It isn’t designed to improve our schools, or pull our prisons or mental health system out of crisis. It doesn’t contemplate repairing our roads, or maybe putting some troopers out on them to enforce our traffic laws. It doesn’t take on our crumbling social, political or economic infrastructure in any direct way. He doesn’t even want to spend the cigarette tax increase on Medicaid.

No, the whole plan is aimed at accomplishing the goal of doing something the governor has been determined to do since he announced his candidacy for office — reduce the income tax.

Sure, an economic stimulus would be great. But our state economy is in need of far more than a stimulus. We’re not just going through a bad patch here, to be fixed with a shot in the arm. Our economy has been suffering — compared to the rest of the nation — since 1865. We have profound, underlying, structural problems that have gone unaddressed, or at least inadequately addressed, in the best of times. Even when portions of our state were roaring along through boom times, much of the rest of the state did not benefit. That’s why the averages all look so bad.

Suppose cutting the income tax does encourage someone to start a high-tech business in our state. Where will that entrepreneur find qualified workers? Not in our rural schools.

When we talk about changing our tax system, we should start by saying, what does government need to fund? Then we should say, what is the fairest, least wasteful and most effective way to raise and spend that money? The governor’s plan neither asks nor answers those questions.

I’m told by the governor’s staff that I’m failing to see this in the context of the governor’s bold, extraordinary budget plan, which looks at the big picture in a way that will be unprecedented. To which I say, wonderful! I’ve been waiting anxiously to see that budget. I’ve been much impressed by the in-depth way the governor has approached the budget process, holding lengthy meetings with agencies to dig deep into their programs, looking for ways to squeeze the most out of scarce resources and deliver state services in the most effective manner. No governor has ever to my knowledge prepared this diligently for a budget proposal.

But of course I’m not seeing this tax proposal within that context —it wasn’t presented within that context. That bold budget isn’t coming out until January. This tax plan probably would have benefited greatly from being presented at that same time.

It has been laid before us naked and alone. The glaring light falling upon it is not flattering.

As I was writing this column, the governor called me to take issue with our Friday editorial criticizing this plan. That conversation exposed a failure to communicate — actually, two such failures, and one of them was on our part.

The governor — and apparently other state leaders — had formed the impression that our editorial board is endorsing the tax plan being touted by Reps. Rick Quinn and Vincent Sheheen, with which we compared his unfavorably. Let me set the record straight: We are a long way from deciding what we think of that complex proposal. We expect to spend much of the next few months examining the many assumptions and ramifications in it. We have a lot of questions about it (including some of the same ones that trouble the governor). The one thing we like so far is the very thing that makes it hard to digest: It is comprehensive. It does look at the whole of what the state needs to fund, and attempts to devise an equitable tax structure to fund it.

The second failure to communicate isn’t our fault. The governor insisted that we got it wrong when we said Messrs. Quinn and Sheheen would also lower the income tax. Their plan does seem to be a bit of a moving target, but it was in there when I saw it, which is more recently than they spoke to the governor’s staff. Suggestion: Those two gentlemen should talk to the governor more often.

The bottom line is that the governor has an opportunity before him to exert much-needed leadership in helping our state meet the daunting challenges before it. What with his restructuring plan, his marathon budget process, his MAP Commission and the multilateral conversation going on about comprehensive tax reform, he has the chance to drive revolutionary, needed change in South Carolina.

Once he’s completely ready, he needs to lay it all out before us as a coherent whole, and put all his energy into selling it. The success or failure of his administration rides on how well he does that. Far more importantly, so does the future of our state.

Write to Mr. Warthen at P.O. Box 1333, Columbia, S.C. 29202, or bwarthen@thestate.com.