Washington ? Even the wonks in Washington find their eyes glazing over when the topic is congressional budget procedures, so there is no shame for citizens who want to be spared the details of that particular form of legislative sausage-making. Nonetheless, Congress faces an important decision when it returns after Easter about the rules by which it will make future tax and spending decisions.

An uphill effort will be made to revive the “pay-as-you-go” (or “pay-go” in shorthand) rule for budget-making — and anyone who cares about the staggering debts we’re passing on to our children and grandchildren has a stake in this fight.

“Pay-go” was in effect from 1990 to 2002, when the budgetary pressures of the recession and the war on terrorism persuaded Republican leaders of Congress to abandon it. In its time, it made a major contribution to moving the country from deficits to surpluses.

Now, with the deficit for next year projected at a record $521 billion, many in Congress are saying it’s time to bring “pay-go” back.

The rule was pretty simple: It basically said that any increased spending or reduction in revenues had to be offset by reduced spending somewhere else or additional taxes. It was, in effect, the same rule that most families apply to themselves: Trim your wishes to what you can afford.

There’s been nothing partisan about the approach. It was originally negotiated between the first President Bush and a Democratic Congress. It was renewed by a Democratic Congress and President Clinton and, most recently in 1997, by a Republican Congress and Clinton. In 1997, overwhelming majorities of both parties supported the idea because they could see it was helping move the government out of the red.

But now it has become a more partisan issue. The White House and House Republican leaders oppose applying “pay-go” to taxes, because they fear it would make it more difficult to pass future tax cuts. The Senate put a “pay-go” provision into its budget resolution last month, by a 51-to-48 vote, with four Republicans joining the Democrats to pass it.

But a similar provision was blocked in the House and, when an effort was made to instruct House conferees to accept the Senate language, the House GOP leadership held the vote open for more than 20 minutes, while arms were twisted. In the end, the motion failed on a 209-209 tie, after four Republicans were pressured into changing their votes from yes to no.

Clearly, on a free vote of conscience, narrow majorities in both the House and Senate would be prepared to impose this degree of self-discipline on themselves. Whether they will have a chance to do so depends on what happens in a House-Senate conference committee when the lawmakers return.

These conferences are no longer the representative bodies they once were. Under the current Republican control of the House and Senate, Democrats are routinely excluded from the discussions after the ceremonial opening day. The real negotiations involve only top Republicans in Congress and representatives of the White House.

Knowledgeable sources predict that the conferees will recommend what one Capitol Hill budget expert calls a “Band-aid” approach. The Senate, but not the House, will impose a “pay-go” rule on itself, but will specify that three tax cuts Bush and most members of both parties want to extend — the 10 percent bracket, the removal of the so-called “marriage penalty” and the expanded child tax credit — will be exempted from the “pay-go” rule.

One Republican staffer calls this a “fig leaf,” because those provisions were certain to be extended in any case.

Could a “pay-go” rule with real teeth still be salvaged? The odds are against it. But 11 brave House Republicans voted for “pay-go” even after their leaders cracked the whip, and four Senate Republicans did the same. Alan Greenspan and a host of other fiscal experts say the rule is needed — and would be effective in trimming deficits. Editorial and public opinion might stiffen a few more Republican spines.

The Democrats who have led this fight are the members of the “Blue Dog” caucus, fiscal conservatives who cannot stomach the profligacy of spending money the government doesn’t have.

One of them, Rep. Charles Stenholm of Texas, made the case in easily understood language: “When you find yourself in a hole,” he said, “the first rule is to quit digging.” “Pay-go”, he said, “would take the shovels away from Congress and the president.”

If that makes sense to you, let your representative and senators know.

David Broder is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.