Today is the start of the new fiscal year, and the conventional wisdom around the Capitol is that the Democrats and Republicans are so far apart that it will take weeks before the state gets a budget. I'm not so sure.

Former Assemblyman Phil Isenberg, in the midst of past budget stalemates, was fond of noting that the parties agreed on 95 percent or more of the budget. It was just those last few pieces that always held them up.

This observation is as true now as it was then.

In a $71 billion proposed general fund, less than $2 billion separates the Democrats and the Republicans in the state Senate.

The Republicans have said that the only thing they will not do is vote for a tax increase. The budget the Democrats have put on the table relies on only one tax hike for which the Republicans would have to vote: a half-cent increase in the sales tax. And budget-writers are counting on that tax to raise $1.7 billion in the new fiscal year.

That means the Democrats could get the Republican votes necessary to pass a budget if they cut $1.7 billion more from their latest proposal. Can they do that?

Consider that the proposed budget, while officially showing a smaller level of spending than was approved a year ago, is actually programmed to expand government programs overall. Because of borrowing, fund shifts and other accounting maneuvers, spending on programs in the coming year would be a bit higher than in the year just ended. Not enough, perhaps, to keep pace with population growth, but also not quite the end of the world.

Consider also that Gov. Gray Davis, nominally the head of the Democratic Party in this state, has proposed more than $3.5 billion in spending cuts that are not included in the budget plan now pending in the Senate. The legislative analyst, who is fiercely nonpartisan yet answers to the Democrats who control the Legislature, has proposed another $1 billion or so. If the Democrats pluck just the least objectionable cuts from these lists, the budget deal will be done.

Democrats won't like it. They will say it cuts programs that the least fortunate among us need to survive. Republicans won't like it, and will note that it assumes a tripling of the car tax that Davis has just enacted without a vote of the Legislature. I won't like it because such a budget would mostly shove today's problems into the future, where they will be borne by taxpayers who won't necessarily get the benefit of the spending that this plan would include.

But many people seem to think that getting a speedy budget is more important than getting a good one. If that's the case, such a spending plan is certainly within reach.

What would it look like? Many of the new cuts would be in the Medi-Cal health care program for the poor. Some of these would reverse recent expansions of eligibility to the working poor and the aged and disabled. Some would simply defer increases in payments now planned for the coming year.

Medi-Cal is growing at a rapid clip. The budget approved a year ago included about $10 billion in state funds for the program. The proposed budget now on the table would push that to $10.6 billion. But that number is artificially reduced by nearly $1 billion because of a one-time accounting change. The real amount planned for Medi-Cal, on an apples-to-apples basis, is $11.5 billion, a huge increase over a year ago. Limiting that increase to about 8 percent would save nearly $800 million (I've detailed these and other cuts on my daily Weblog, at www.sacbee.com/insider).

Another $500 million or so could be saved by deferring cost-of-living increases in the state's two biggest welfare programs. Davis earlier this year proposed cutting grants to families with children, and the low-income aged and disabled, by 6 percent. That proposal is long gone, and now the budget plan pending in the Senate would actually increase the grants. Can the state afford to do this at a time when, in the words of the governor's finance director, it is broke?

Another fast-growing part of the budget is care for the developmentally disabled. The legislative analyst has said California could save $100 million by adopting statewide standards for the purchase of services to this population. Davis embraced that idea but has now dropped it. Reinstating that reduction, and charging fees to families who can afford to pay for the services, would save the state a significant amount of money.

So Democrats have a choice. They can try to wait out the Republicans and see if they're serious about blocking a budget that contains new taxes beyond the $4 billion that will come from increasing the vehicle license fee. Or the Democrats can swallow $1.7 billion in cuts that they would rather not make, which would allow them to secure a budget relatively quickly.

Either way, whether the next state budget is a day late or delayed for a month or more, it isn't likely to address the truly big questions about the future of the state.