WHEN they convene for the 2014 legislative session in February, lawmakers will face tough budget choices. In particular, they must weigh the demand for pro-growth tax policies against the need to fund core functions of government.

A recent court decision striking down a scheduled income tax reduction and Capitol repair measure complicates this challenge. That decision actually alleviated this year's revenue decline: Had the bill been upheld, lawmakers would have faced a $273 million revenue reduction. Instead, they now face a $170 million shortfall.

Some argue the tax cut should be re-enacted. Others say this isn't the right time due to budget challenges. We've long supported tax cuts as a way to spur economic growth. The evidence suggests cuts enacted in the past decade have done just that — or, at a minimum, haven't caused the fiscal problems opponents predicted.

From 2005 to 2007, lawmakers incrementally cut the state income tax rate to 5.25 percent with an expected impact of $283.1 million to state revenue over several years. Instead, general revenue collections increased $688.8 million from the 2005 to 2008 fiscal years. The problem is that tax reductions are tied to long term economic growth, but the state budget covers a short-term time frame and is constitutionally required to be balanced.