Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday will release a revised budget plan that he vows will include no tax increases. Instead, the governor has said, he will "cut, cut, cut."

The lead-up to Thursday feels more like the fulfilling of a misguided campaign promise (no taxes) than the beginning of an honest budget conversation with Californians. There's a difference between a real budget cut and a phony one. Here are some possible "cuts" that aren't even skin deep:

* Transportation. A recent example in a story by The Bee's Tony Bizjak described how one project - a new car pool lane on Highway 50 between Sunrise Avenue and downtown Sacramento - is being delayed due to a "cut" of funds. This is one of 400 transportation projects throughout the state that are being delayed because the money to pay for them is being shifted elsewhere. Unless the governor come Thursday proposes to eliminate these transportation projects, a "cut" to this budget does not eliminate any actual spending. It defers projects, and by so doing, makes them more expensive.

* Higher education. If "cuts" turn away students who are qualified to enter the University of California or California State University systems, costs are simply shifted into the future. These universities, which are economic engines by producing a trained work force, would have to run on fewer cylinders. And so will California businesses, which rely on these universities for the skilled employees necessary in a competitive global marketplace.

* Health care. If "cuts" produce more citizens who have to wait longer to see a doctor and more children without health insurance, the result will be less preventive care and greater use of high-cost emergency rooms for routine care.

* Local government and public schools. If they get less money this year in exchange for the promise of more in the future, these aren't permanent cuts.

As for new revenues? The credit card, alas, seems likely to be the biggest source that the governor may use. The "refinancing" that California voters approved back in March actually includes $3 billion in funds beyond existing debts. This money could go to build roads or other long-term capital projects, the kind of projects for which California typically has used borrowed funds. If the governor spends this long-term debt in a single year's budget, it's like refinancing the house to make mortgage payments

An uptick in the economy is producing more tax dollars, which is welcome news. But there is no realistic expectation that California will grow itself out of its structural budget problem. It will take real long-term changes on both the expense and revenue sides of the books. Real cuts, not just short-term deferrals and fund transfers. Real revenues, not just funds from the credit card.

But there's no indication such changes are in the works. If the governor is planning to announce any real cure for the state's structural budget problems Thursday, it is the best-kept secret in Sacramento.