Battle lines are being drawn in state government between those who think “across-the-board” cuts are the best way to balance the state budget and those who favor “targeted” budget reductions.

Those who want to apply a percentage cut across the board see it as a fair way to spread the pain of state budget shortfalls. Those who want to target the cuts believe that some areas of the budget must be protected more than others, and it’s up to the governor and state legislators to make those decisions.

In evaluating which approach makes more sense, it may be helpful to consider how average Kansans deal with budget shortfalls — shortfalls many are experiencing during the current economic downturn.

Put yourself in the place of an elderly woman on a fixed income. She can turn down her thermostat to reduce her heating bill and even cut back on purchases at the grocery store to save money, but trimming how much she spends on an essential prescription drug probably isn’t an option. She either has to pay the full amount or do without. Making an across-the-board cut to each area of her budget wouldn’t work so well.

Take a student at a state university. If he wants to stay in school, he pretty much has to pay his full tuition bill. Barring the availability of some additional loan or scholarship funds, which seems unlikely in the current economic climate, the money to pay his tuition is essential to him continuing as a student. He can cut his expenses for beer or entertainment by a certain percentage; he can even find a roommate to help reduce his living expenses; but applying an across-the-board cut to his tuition bill is a nonstarter.

Kansas parents make these choices all the time. For many of them, paying for child care is an essential part of the budget if they are to continue to work. It’s not a negotiable expense. They can target other spending reductions such as eating out less or even using public transportation, but an across-the-board approach wouldn’t work.

Perhaps the greatest appeal of an across-the-board approach to the state budget is that it eliminates a lot of nasty decision-making about what functions of state government are most essential. That would be nice but, as the above examples illustrate, life doesn’t work that way.

Life is full of tough decisions, and state lawmakers are simply going to have to step up and make some of them.