On Wednesday, Gov. Wes Moore and his staff are expected to release a proposed budget for the coming fiscal year that trims $2 billion of state spending. That’s no small amount even in a state that plows through $63 billion annually. But here’s the rub. The consequences of those reductions won’t be immediately clear — at least perhaps beyond the fate of major high-profile initiatives like Baltimore’s Red Line that Moore has promised to revive. It will only be in the weeks ahead as state lawmakers pore through the fine print and ask questions of Budget and Management Secretary Helene T. Grady and others that the tradeoffs (good, bad and indifferent) will come into focus.

Here’s why that’s important. Last week, pollsters released surveys that suggested Marylanders prefer budget cuts to higher taxes with one even asking specifically about raising sales, income and/or property taxes as an alternative. It should come as no surprise whatsoever that Marylanders overwhelmingly said no to all three. How could they not? In a theoretical world, everyone prefers taxes not be raised.

Why not trim spending?

The survey by Anne Arundel County-based Gonzalez Research & Media Services offered respondents not a peep about the consequences of that. How easy it must be to imagine budget cuts simply mean some lackadaisical government employees don’t get a raise or have to work a bit harder.

But here’s something closer to reality. Cut Medicaid, for example (and that’s a likely target given it totals over $14 billion) and perhaps low-income seniors won’t get dental care — or some other “optional” procedures are denied. A cut in primary care can mean medical conditions worsen into crises. Hospital emergency rooms are flooded and, eventually, the bill comes do for more costly procedures or lives are shortened. The same can be true in transportation. Spend less to fix potholes and drivers pay the price in congestion and vehicle repairs. You can, as they say, pay now or pay more later.

That’s not to suggest there aren’t examples of wasteful government policies. But it is patently false to imply that lawmakers, particularly on the budget committees, aren’t looking for such excesses already. Gov. Moore would have Marylanders believe that holding the line on taxes is heroic.

Maybe, but maybe not.

It’s certainly not hurting his popularity (as the same poll shows his reelection prospects look awfully good) but is it in the long-term interest of the state?

In reality, governors and state lawmakers are hired to make the tough calls. And those are based on being fully informed of all the pros and cons of their choices. Ask any homeowner. Do they want to hire an exterminator to get rid of those pesky termites in the attic? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to leave them alone? We all know the answer is no. It’s far cheaper to eradicate the destructive vermin now than wait until after they’ve chewed through all the wood in your home even if that would take years.

It’s the same with many state government programs. A failure to keep Baltimore’s light rail line in good shape has already led to costly service problems. That, in turn, makes it much tougher for the Maryland Transit Administration to meet its budget and invest sufficiently in other transit systems needed to connect low-income neighborhoods to employment centers. The result of that? More households dependent on taxpayer-subsidized services.

There are other factors, of course. As Gov. Moore has noted, Maryland must compete against surrounding states so a tax increase that discourages businesses to locate or expand here has adverse consequences, too. But let’s stop thinking of budget cuts and higher taxes and fees as distinct choices that are either all good or all bad. The world (and Annapolis) is far more complicated than that. And politicians ought not be dumbing down these complexities for the cheapest of reasons — to curry favor with voters.