New efforts to find a way around borrowing in the state budget are worthwhile, but it’s also important to remember exactly how the state got here to begin with.

Nobody in the budget process wanted to balance the budget on the back of borrowing. It’s an unpopular idea that’s proven susceptible to effective political criticism. Borrowing became part of the budget because consensus could not be developed from competing positions.

The governor would not relent on tax increases. Republicans would not back away from demands that unspecified cuts be made in spending. And a majority of Democrats would not support cuts in what they considered essential state services.

Much of the borrowing can be laid firmly at the feet of a referendum that was passed by state voters in November, mandating increased funding for K-12 education. The referendum, however, left the difficult task of finding the money up to the Legislature and governor.

While there is a new spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans in Augusta, none of the underlying facts of the budget has changed. What has changed, however, is the willingness of the state’s politicians to reconsider their positions.

Earlier this week, a joint order was passed directing the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee to reconsider the budget and seek ways to eliminate the approximately $250 million in borrowing contained in the budget.

There’s reason to be optimistic.

On Monday, Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee unanimously approved a supplemental budget that addresses revenue shortfalls since the budget was passed in late March. Negotiations were, at times, difficult, but the committee was able to develop a plan that closes the Medicaid gap created by a change in federal reimbursement rates and maintains about $20 million to pay hospitals what they are owed from Medicaid underpayments.

But there’s more driving this new look at the budget than just goodwill between the parties. The attempt to overturn the borrowing portion of the budget with a people’s veto has left Democrats politically vulnerable, and has pushed them to reopen budget talks.

The big fear among advocates for the poor, the mentally ill and the elderly is that the borrowing will be eliminated on the backs of the state’s most vulnerable populations. Education and Medicaid make up the majority of the state budget. Take education off the table, and the only big-ticket item left is social services, primarily Medicaid.

Instead of the much-bandied 5 percent across-the-board cuts, the real figure would be about 9 percent if education is spared. That translates into real human costs: A possible 35,000 people could lose health coverage, for example.

Sen. Peter Mills, one of the initiators of the people’s veto, has proposed a plan that would combine cuts in state spending with new revenue, generated through a temporary increase in the sales tax. We have advocated broadening the sales tax, hiking sin taxes and slowing down Medicaid’s growth. In the end, it must be recognized that cuts alone will not solve the budget dilemma.

A new agreement to garner the necessary two-thirds support, however, will require more than just a reasonable plan. It requires political leadership and a willingness to take a risk.

The governor will have to reconsider his no-tax pledge, Democrats will have to coalesce around a single plan and Republicans will have to give up a potent political issue they would like to carry into next year’s gubernatorial and legislative races – namely state borrowing and taxes.

An adage goes that it takes Republicans to raise taxes and Democrats to cut spending. Anything else plays too easily into the political stereotypes that feed sound-bite wars waged during campaigns.

Can a deal be struck, or are next year’s elections too big a prize to risk for the sake of good governance?