For every solution, there is a problem.

That thought might help explain the current debate over using the state's Hurricane Relief Fund to help balance the state budget.

Advertiser government reporter Derrick DePledge has a complete account of the debate over the fund in yesterday's paper. In a nutshell, the argument is whether to:

a) Use the $185 million in the fund to help balance the budget;

b) Return it to taxpayers, since insurance companies are now back in the hurricane coverage business;

c) Hold on to it, since another hurricane is inevitable, and once again insurance companies are likely to flee the state.

The problem here is that even if the entire fund is tapped, it would only chop a modest amount of the expected deficit, now projected at close to $800 million. And realistically, is it fair to use money collected for one (specific) purpose to take care of another, unrelated problem?

The news this week is that two storms are churning out there in the Pacific. It would be ironic if we got hit by one of those tropical storms just after our hurricane fund was wiped out to deal with the fiscal storm at home.

Of course, there is another set-aside fund in the state treasury that might be tapped: The so-called "rainy-day" fund. This is money set aside to take care of emergencies or unexpected expenses. In theory, today's situation might seem to qualify.

But there are two problems here. First, the rainy-day fund only has around $75 million in it, hardly enough to make a big dent in the current budget deficit. Second, the idea of the fund was that it was for sudden, unexpected emergencies where a quick dash of cash would be needed.

Our budget problems are not of that nature. They are systematic. Plugging in the rainy-day fund would do nothing to solve the larger problem, which is the national and global economic downturn combined with our extreme reliance on one industry: tourism.

Using either the hurricane relief fund or the rainy-day fund is a way of avoiding, rather than confronting, the problem. The plain fact is that times are going to be tough for the state for the next couple of years. But these difficult times may be a blessing in disguise.

We now have an opportunity to rethink budget and spending priorities in a global way. Traditionally, the state has sought to maintain a budget "reserve" or carryover balance of around 5 percent. That is, you always spend about 5 percent less than you have.

Many fiscal experts suggest that a more sensible carryover balance would be in the neighborhood of 15 percent. If Hawai'i had that kind of balance, today's problems would be relatively minor.

And if the rainy-day fund makes sense, then it should be regularly replenished. The natural inclination of lawmakers when the budget is sound is to decrease taxes or increase spending on popular programs. That's understandable. But perhaps they should put themselves on a fiscal diet and create a mandatory system in which a fixed percentage of any surplus is set aside for the rainy-day fund before any other use is even considered.

It's true, most of us in our own households don't have the discipline to manage our money in this way. But we elect these folks to be smarter than we are, don't we?