The last seat we’d like to fill nowadays is on the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee, which has the arduous task of slimming state government by $150 million for now, and then several hundred million dollars more later. Call it a “stock market crash diet.”

Yet this process is about more than hitting a figure. Anybody with a spreadsheet and a machete can hack spending; the important point is not how much to cut, but where from. This broadens the debate beyond fiscal concerns into realms of priorities, values and sacrifices.

In short, an ethical debate, as much as a financial one. The depth of cuts demanded by the recession will likely contradict the moral compasses of those empowered to make them. The situation seems ripe for seeking a little guidance from above.

Or, from in-house.

Leaders in Alexandria, Va., for example, have taken the unique step of hiring a professional ethicist to help guide their budget tightening. “What we’ve learned from him is tough love,” the city’s finance director, Bruce Johnson, told the Washington Post recently.

This may seem like a wacky new-age treatment to an age-old problem – Reiki for budgets, or something – and a luxury. But it’s actually overdue recognition of how difficult these spending decisions really are, and how adherence to one or another political ideology is no great adviser in making them.

Because, in the final analysis, what’s cut and what remains in government is a direct reflection of the values of its constituency. In a vast state like Maine, divided by regional, social and economic lines, coming to a conclusion about its values is a slippery proposition.

It’s easier in households, because the sample size is smaller. One person or family can evaluate expenses and revenues and decide what to do. In business, there’s clear authority. Decisions are made, good or ill, with the leeway that is uniquely afforded to private endeavors.

Not so in government. This process becomes a very public vetting of ideals, across a constituency larger and more diverse than Maine itself. It’s here ethics could prove valuable.

Lawmakers are now weighing the immediate situation, which was presented to them by Gov. John Baldacci. In a few weeks, they’ll start crafting another two-year spending plan that promises to be more challenging and divisive than any in recent memory.

Guiding principles are needed. What should result from this process? We’ve suggested something simple: Keep Maine government good, don’t make it cheap. Evaluating cuts and changes through this basic prism could help lawmakers sort the difficult choices ahead.

That’s just one thought. What’s most important, for lawmakers, is paying attention to the larger picture.

Balancing the state’s books is more than making figures match. Just like in Virginia, it’s an exercise in “tough love.”