IT WAS A RELIEF TO learn last week that Gov. Mark Sanford is open to the possibility of raising the state's cigarette tax to help pay for Medicaid. Given that he, like many legislators, had shortsightedly tied his own hands by signing a pledge never to raise taxes, no matter what, it would have been easy for him to simply reject the talk of bringing our rock-bottom cigarette tax up to the national average.

To be sure, we aren't crazy about his idea of pairing a cigarette tax with an eventual decrease in the income tax; one reason this tax increase makes sense, even absent an overhaul of the tax code, is that we need more money to pay for essential health care for the poor, just as businesses everywhere need more money to provide health insurance for their employees. And Medicaid is a good buy: Every state dollar is matched by three from the federal government, and that money provides jobs to boost our economy.

But we don't share the concerns of some legislators and lobbyists, who suggest that his proposal is the kiss of death for a cigarette tax increase. No doubt many of them misunderstood the offer. Whether he was trying to set out his priorities and show a willingness to negotiate with legislators rather than dictate what they must do, or simply trying to gain leverage, the governor didn't do the best job of explaining what he wanted.

He did a better job when he met with editorial writers to preview his State of the State. Here's how he sees the deal: The cigarette tax could start immediately, to pump money into the Medicaid program. A reduction in the income tax would not have to start right away (although he probably would not object to that), as long as there was no question that it was part of the deal. It's useful to note that while Mr. Sanford frequently departed from his prepared text in last week's address, he stuck exactly to the script when he called for pairing a cigarette tax with a "plan" to cut another tax.

Although this would only give us extra money temporarily, Mr. Sanford argues that it would take care of our problem because reforms in the Medicaid program (primarily focusing on preventive care) should eventually help to contain its costs and a growing economy should eventually help to pay for income tax cuts.

That approach is consistent with two important values he holds in regards to taxing and spending.

First, he believes that we should take a longer-term approach to budgeting -- writing a two-year budget, based on a six-year financial plan, rather than tinkering with it every year. Such an approach would make it realistic to believe that a tax could be increased this year in return for lowering another one later.

Second, he understands that, as he puts it "all taxes are not created equally." Or, to put it another way, tax policy can be used to influence behavior. A higher tax on cigarettes discourages teens from smoking; that's good. A high tax on income can discourage people from bringing good jobs to our state; that's bad.

Gov. Sanford's approach is not the one we prefer. The immediate problem isn't that we're taxing the wrong things. It's that we don't have enough money to meet our urgent needs. A stand-alone cigarette tax increase is a good way to address that problem because a higher cigarette tax has the added benefit of reducing the number of teenagers who start smoking.

But neither does his proposal simply amount to giving with one hand while taking with the other. It might involve some tradeoffs, but tradeoffs are part of the legislative process, and they are not always bad when they are made with an understanding of the big picture.