LOOKED AT SEPARATELY, the components of Gov. Mark Sanford’s latest tax plan can make sense:

Lowering the income tax could help stimulate job development. Subjecting lottery tickets to the same sales tax as milk and eggs and books and practically everything else we buy is just good policy. Increasing the cigarette tax will not only catch the per-dollar levy up with inflation but also have the tremendously beneficial effect of reducing smoking among teens.

Clearly, our state is better off on a number of levels if it collects $200 million in taxes on cigarettes and lottery tickets than if it collects the same amount of money in income taxes. And all of these components need to be part of the discussion about overhauling South Carolina’s tax code — and probably part of the end product.

But they are only part of the discussion — the part that Mr. Sanford has been fixated on since he launched his campaign for governor, under tremendously different circumstances than our state faces today. And frankly, it is disappointing, if not disturbing, to see that Mr. Sanford is so far engaging only part of the discussion that our state needs to be having.

Finally, after years of taking a piecemeal approach to our tax code, a consensus has begun to build around the need to make comprehensive change: to look at the entire tax code and fundamentally reform it. Spearheading this effort are Reps. Rick Quinn and Vincent Sheheen, who have put forward a sweeping proposal that touches all of the state’s major taxes and some smaller ones. (It’s useful to note that their plan includes the same income tax reduction that Mr. Sanford is proposing to make in a relative vacuum.)

Mr. Sanford sees his tax plan more in terms of economic stimulus than of tax reform, or of the need to fund schools and other essential services. Hence his piecemeal approach. And there is no question that stimulating our economy is important. But our economy needs much more than stimulus. It needs fundamental change. The task that lies before us is to build a strong foundation for that economy — a foundation that must include not only smart tax policy but also major improvements to public education, especially in poor areas where our children are being left behind, and thus making our state a less attractive investment.

Mr. Sanford’s proposal does not do that. That requires changes to more than just the income tax. And it requires rethinking the way we provide education throughout the state — an idea that is at the heart of the Quinn-Sheheen plan and of some other plans that are emerging.

Certainly, Mr. Sanford’s individual proposals need to be considered along with the other ideas that are out there. But they will not frame the debate. It is these broader, more comprehensive plans that must do that. The goal must be to come up with the best combination of tax changes that will ensure that all of our children have access to an adequate education, that our tax system is friendly to business and fair to all and that our state is able to provide the other fundamental services that make this a worthwhile place to live — and to invest. Our governor needs to fully engage in that debate.