The race to the finish line is now on full tilt between those who oppose the tax-raising ballot measures being offered up to the voters May 19 and those who insist that without these severe budget-balancing repairs the state faces financial Armageddon.

But the arguments and super-charged ads now flooding the airwaves are not likely to promote voter understanding of the underlying problems and they present a set of mutually unacceptable choices that will perpetuate the same problems until they have to be confronted once again during the next budget go-around.

The ultimate test of democracy is whether the citizenry can believe what its leaders are saying. Politicians regularly rank at the bottom of all polls for trustworthiness. Firefighters, nurses and teachers are at the top.

Since our legislators have lost most of their credibility - a scant 21 percent of voters give them a favorable rating - they are calling on their surrogates to do the heavy lifting.

No wonder that firefighters and teachers are being trotted out by the yes advocates. The major sports organizations also have signed on, fearing their tickets might otherwise be taxed.

On the one hand, we are told there is a ballooning deficit lurching out of control brought on by dwindling revenues, which will force the state to borrow as much as $23 billion that neither the banks nor the federal government may be willing to lend it if these ballot measures are rejected. Or, we can choose to gamble on returns from future lottery profits and strip money from other vitally needed services, hoping the budget will right itself in future years and avert even more drastic cuts.

The last time the voters were sold on the virtues of a quick budget fix was in 2004 when Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the popular newly-elected governor, was able to erase what was then an almost identical $15 billion deficit by getting Proposition 58 passed.

This year's ballot enthusiasts are making the same claims.

The governor said then, "This is the first time that our politicians' credit cards have been torn up and thrown away so they never, ever can spend more money than the state takes in." The measure sailed through with 71 percent of the vote.

The following year Proposition 76 provided what was deemed the missing link - a spending curb - but it failed lacking bipartisan support. Proposition 1A renews the spending cap but this time with the blessing of Democrats who accepted it as part of the price for supporting an otherwise unappetizing budget deal.

Marin Assemblyman Jared Huffman says, "These were not the solutions I would have chosen and I reluctantly accepted the compromise because of the urgency of the crisis and the 100-day standoff that had already resulted in 25,000 teachers getting 'pink slips,' closures of health clinics and childcare centers, and more than $2 billion in infrastructure projects stopped in their tracks."

Liberal Democrats oppose permanent spending caps. Republicans worry that the tax increases will be extended.

Huffman, who might be characterized as a member of the Realist school, urges a "yes" vote, saying these ballot measures are "the glue that holds a good portion of that compromise together."

The options are: Take something terrible now or something even worse later. The bigger issue is not that the government is broke, but the system.