Gov. Mark Sanford's unprecedented attempt to surgically carve out those state programs that were not absolutely essential created the best conditions we likely will ever see to test the following supposition: that we can fund our essential needs without raising taxes; that we can do it by "cutting the fat," or by going further and eliminating the merely nonessential.

Sanford found 271 things to cut and managed to keep most essential services intact.

While the budget makes only minor cuts to most agencies and gives some generous increases to several important functions, it does so only by tapping $270 million from property sales and other pots of money that won't be available next year. And unlike previous years, the committee has made it clear that it has no intention of replacing that one-time money next year.

House budget writers resorted to this temporary stay because they rejected Sanford's most significant cuts -- from shutting down underutilized colleges to privatizing golf courses and consolidating Highway Patrol dispatch offices -- and failed to come up with specific cuts to take their place.

Unless the full House or the Senate manages to identify more programs that we can do without, and finds the political will to eliminate them -- if indeed Sanford's proposal turns out to be the high-water mark in how much we can save by completely rethinking the way we look at government -- then we will have no choice but to conclude that we must raise taxes.