It makes sense to ask governments to live within their means. But when the means of gathering that means is constantly undermined, it also makes sense to retrench and rebuild the foundation.

On Thursday, the Washington state Supreme Court cut off a source of state revenue when it ruled that the state should not have been collecting the estate tax over the past few years. In 1981, the state piggybacked on the federal estate tax, but federal legislation passed in 2001 began phasing out that tax.

The state failed to establish its own estate tax, and so the court ruled, in essence, that the state doesn’t have one. Therefore, money collected might have to be returned.

The potential hit to the state budget for the refunds could be $430 million over the next two years. Plus, the state will lose the more than $100 million it collects annually from that tax.

For state budget writers grappling with yet another year of trying to close a huge funding gap, the court ruling is a painful punch in the gut. This year, they are facing a $1.8 billion funding gap and a public that has shown little interest in raising sales or business taxes.

One of the problems is that the state doesn’t have a stable tax structure. The motor vehicle excise tax was repealed. Strict limits were placed on property tax increases. And now, the state Supreme Court has buried the estate tax.

State leaders have yet to respond to these fundamental changes. Instead, they are trying to get by with accounting tricks and gimmicky taxes. Former Gov. Gary Locke proposes raising taxes on soda pop and beer. State Sen. Karen Keiser calls for a tax on facelifts, hair implants and liposuction.

When they get serious about the problem, they might want to return to the study they commissioned three years ago that looked into adopting an income tax.

One of the study’s authors, Bill Gates Sr., returned to Olympia recently to chastise legislators for ignoring the recommendations.

“It’s too hard!” say opponents, pointing to the difficulties involved in establishing a new tax structure.

Is it harder than bringing democracy to Iraq? Is it harder than overhauling Social Security? Is it harder than reforming the federal tax code, which President Bush says he wants to do? Many people who are against the state income tax are all for tackling those more difficult tasks.

Would it be hard? Yes. But the state is like a house overlooking an eroding cliff. If an income tax isn’t the right tool to bring stability, lawmakers have a duty to produce another.