With the state going through an undenied budget crunch, the focus has naturally been on the public workers, whose salaries make up the bulk of state expenses.

With the agreement by members of most of the Hawaii Government Employees Association (white collar) units to accept 18 furlough days this fiscal year and 24 next year (worth about an 8 percent pay cut) the die is cast: The way through this mess is on the backs of paid public workers.

But probe a bit deeper and another picture emerges. The budget crisis is forcing a public discussion of just what kind of government we want and are willing to pay for.

It's popular for letter writers and commentators to say Gov. Linda Lingle is using the current budget problem as an excuse to pursue a Ronald Reagan-like assault on the very size and scope of government. If that's so, then why has the focus been on public worker salaries or payroll rather than on government programs itself?

The Lingle administration projects a shortfall of around $1 billion by June 2011. Put another way, this says the state will be a billion bucks short of what it needs to give you what you want and need. But are there truly a billion dollars worth of programs and services we cannot do without?

This is a discussion worth having, but no one seems willing to take it on. If there is agreement that the state government, in all its splendid complexity, is about at the right size, then the focus on layoffs and furloughs is close to fatuous. Just raise taxes to make up the shortfall and get on with it.

But if a tax hike is out of the question, as Lingle argues, then it is time for a serious look at the size and scope of state government. It is impossible to believe that everything the state has created as a service to the public since statehood still serves its purpose. Is anyone willing to take on this task?

It would be difficult business. But the math is quite simple. Go through the entire state budget, figure out what is needed and what is not and then compute the cost. If that bottom line is more than the state expects to collect in taxes under the current structure, raise taxes to cover the margin.

This, of course, may be an impossible task from a political standpoint, where special interests, special needs and the competing ideas of 76 lawmakers come into play.

But does it make any less sense than coming up with a system of three-day weekends for state workers which will only result in diminished state services and a transfer of costs to other sectors (including people who must put their kids into child care)?

And don't forget: Any savings the state experiences will be in large part chewed up by diminished tax collections as those thousands of state workers spend 8 percent less on average.