As he promised to do during the 2002 campaign, Gov. Mark Sanford has pitched a sensible $5.1 billion plan for transforming state government into a no-frills, no-fat administrative machine that runs on current resources and is accountable to the public. Better still, Sanford's proposed financing for the plan relies on no tricks or gimmicks to meet the state constitutional balanced-budget requirement. He proposes an honest budget, which is a refreshing novelty.

But does he possess the political skills to get this excellent plan, which treats the Grand Strand relatively well, through the General Assembly more or less intact? Or will the Sanford budget, the product of months of fact-finding, planning and preparation, turn out to be little more than a dust-gathering academic exercise?

Given the many cozy, long-established political arrangements that Sanford proposes to disrupt, he is going to have to move rapidly beyond his sometimes diffident, sometimes distracted, often detached governing style to get legislators to take his plan seriously.

Shutting down University of South Carolina branch campuses and 15 state agencies, for instance, prospectively tromps the toes of hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians with a vested - or sentimental - interest in the status quo: alumni, agency clients, state workers, vendors, etc. These people - and their lobbyists - will be in fervid contact with legislators, begging that their favorite campus, program or agency be spared the ax and threatening retaliation for legislators who fail to vote their way.

Same goes for his proposal to shut down six state elective constitutional offices, leaving only the attorney general and governor elected by the voters. Those functions would be folded into the governor's Cabinet. Politicians will hate the plan because it deprives them of opportunities to hold lesser offices - such as treasurer, agriculture commissioner, secretary of state or comptroller general - to build name recognition for runs at higher state offices or seats in Congress. Many educators will fight the loss of the elective education superintendent, on the putative ground that it politicizes public education (as if it weren't politicized already).

Couple the natural legislative tendency to preserve the status quo even though it wastes money with the fact that every seat in the General Assembly is up for grabs this year, and prospects that Sanford plan could die aborning are high. That's why Sanford's preferred method for selling his proposals to the public and to legislators - instructing them on why his ideas are better than what exists now - won't cut it on selling this plan.

If he is to get it passed this year - or even next year - Sanford and his aides will have to exercise constant hands-on, responsive, sensitive-yet-tough-minded contact with legislators of both parties. He'll have to make trades that deal with the concerns of key legislators without detracting from his goals. He may have to make judicious use of veto threats for budget bills that don't meet his expectations. And so on.

Can he do it? Nothing in his record as a member of Congress or as governor thus far suggests that he can. But we're hoping he'll surprise us.

A governor bright enough to figure out how to untangle the state's governance mess - with no tax increase - should be able to learn and exercise the political skills necessary to bring his plan to fruition.