The big debate about Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget cuts may become nothing but a footnote if, as seems increasingly possible, voters in March reject his monster deficit borrowing.

Given the uncertainties of the economy, the current political climate and the other big ticket and policy items on the ballot, past experience suggests that the most likely voter response is to say "no" to everything. That would be a hosing of ice water like none that California has ever confronted.

The two things Schwarzenegger has going are his own personal popularity and salesmanship, and the ironic fact that the March primary could bring out a disproportionate number of Democrats, who are generally less frightened of big government price tags than Republicans.

Schwarzenegger's campaign message -- that the failure of his bond would force both tax increases and draconian budget cuts -- could tip enough of the voters now leaning against him to carry the day.

But it will be a defining test. The numbers this time are so huge -- $15 billion for the Schwarzenegger deficit bond, $12 billion for school bonds -- and the deficit bond is so costly and fiscally dubious that frustrated voters may remind the governor that it was precisely this kind problem that they elected him to solve, not defer again.

Combine that with the loud and conflicting messages that voters will hear in the coming weeks on Proposition 56, the initiative that would allow budgets to be passed by a 55 percent legislative majority rather than the two-thirds margin now required, and you have the makings of precisely the sort of doubt that causes voters to say "no" on everything.

The defeat of the deficit bond would obviously throw all of the governor's budget proposals, already laced with rollovers, borrowing and other Sacramento business-as-usual gimmicks, into a cocked hat. But given the long-term debt the bond would impose on the state and the monster interest costs that come with it, its defeat might not be the unmitigated disaster that Schwarzenegger is warning us about.

Or, to put it another way, passing the bond could be a much bigger disaster than its defeat.

Among the alternatives: following through with the much less costly $10.7 billion in borrowing that the Legislature approved last year.

That proposal, which would not require voter approval, is now being tested in the California courts. According to the attorney general's office, there's only a small chance that there'll be a decision before the March primary. If the courts were to approve it, however, the chances of the Schwarzenegger bond's passing would be -- and deserve to be -- even slimmer.

But Treasurer Phil Angelides, a likely candidate for governor in 2006, and the most vocal critic of what he calls "the national culture of non-responsibility," believes there are other alternatives.

One would be to enact a temporary half-cent sales-tax increase to pay off the state's $10 billion to $12 billion debt. He calculates that could be achieved within five years, perhaps less. Such a dedicated source would do a lot to restore the state's battered credit rating. Angelides said he'd told Schwarzenegger from the beginning that "he needs a Plan B" that includes "a reasonable revenue package" to retire the debt.

Angelides, now the clearest -- and often the only -- major voice among California's leaders in challenging the governor's fiscal stratagems, says he's not going to "wage a jihad" against the bond and the Schwarzenegger budget.

But he's not leaving any doubts that he thinks the governor is on the wrong track -- that Schwarzenegger has proposed an "appalling budget" and that he intends to remind Californians that the disinvestment in education, infrastructure and other public assets is a huge mistake. As treasurer, he says, he'll fight for a budget "that's truly balanced," not one papering over a $14 billion structural deficit with another $8 billion in borrowing, rollovers and raids on other funds.

Whether those reminders are just part of the treasurer's responsibilities or the beginning of a gubernatorial campaign lies in the eye of the beholder. Next week Angelides will visit university campuses to argue that the governor's acknowledged limitations on access and financial aid are a breach of the state's long-term commitments.

Beyond that low-key campaign, however, there's that broader message about the national culture of irresponsibility -- the relentless attacks on regulation and taxes "that have no respect for the legitimate role of public investment." Those attacks are "such a powerful force. ... It has to be repelled."

If Schwarzenegger has a Plan B, he's not likely to talk about it much before the election. So far what he's mostly doing is warning that if his bond doesn't pass, the state will be bankrupt -- which in fact can't happen. States can't file for bankruptcy.

What defeating the bond would do is to force the governor -- and the state -- to stop denying the fiscal facts and confront the reality of California's situation. Plan B is overdue.