The longer this drags out, the more likely it is that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers will resort to a well-worn playbook of accounting shifts, borrowing and asset sales to close out the rest of the budget.

In the past, this has included paying state workers one day later and trying to sell the quasi-public state workers' compensation insurance fund.

Such one-time budget tricks delay political backlash but contribute to California's long-term financial instability. They avoid taxes, so Republicans are happy. They provide money to sustain programs, so Democrats are satisfied.

"There's consensus on gimmicks, because it's the least dangerous option -- at least for the people in office," said Joe Mathews, a New America Foundation senior fellow and co-author of "California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It."

"The consequences are that programs aren't on a stable funding base, businesses are uncertain where the state is heading, and we push costs onto future generations."

To eliminate part of the $19 billion deficit, Democrats and Republicans are again considering one-time options. Sources close to budget negotiations told The Bee that Schwarzenegger has proposed borrowing $2 billion from the state's pension system to help balance the budget, by taking an advance on savings from long-term pension reductions.

State leaders also expect to sell 11 state office buildings for more than $1 billion in upfront cash, only to lease them back for decades. Democrats have proposed letting schools borrow $1.5 billion that the state would promise to repay in future years.

Without enough permanent tax increases or spending decreases, the state's budget imbalance will repeat itself. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office foresees annual deficits of roughly $20 billion through 2014-15.

"People keep asking why we have this problem each year," said Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor. "Well, it's because we use one-time solutions, and the underlying problem resurfaces."

Taylor wasn't referring just to budget tricks, but any solution that is temporary in nature and does not permanently bring spending and revenues into balance. State leaders rely on both.

In bridging a 17-month, $60 billion deficit last year, lawmakers made a rare compromise to temporarily raise taxes and cut spending on schools and social services.

But state leaders also approved accounting tricks, such as delaying paychecks by one day into the next fiscal year and increasing payroll tax withholding by 10 percent. Those moves cannot be used this year.

Last year, Schwarzenegger and lawmakers agreed to sell a portion of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, a quasi-public workers' compensation provider, for $1 billion. The idea fell flat when the deal ran into legal problems, adding to the state's deficit.

In other cases, the state has borrowed heavily to help solve its budget problems. The most significant example was in 2004 when California voters approved $15 billion in borrowing to solve the state's deficit problems.

Still, budget experts say there are times when it's appropriate to rely on some one-time measures, particularly in unusually bad economic times.

"One-time solutions aren't the worst thing you could do if you're trying to buy yourselves time for the economy to get better or to find more consensus," said Taylor. "They have been and will be part of these budget deals. But you want (lawmakers) to maximize permanent solutions."

Taylor differentiated between solutions that create a future liability -- such as borrowing -- and those that generate one-time cash but do not require repayment.

At the very least, budget writers aim for solutions credible enough for Wall Street. The more gimmicky the solutions, the more California may pay in borrowing costs for public works and other needs, said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

In February, Fitch Ratings noted in an analysis of California's record-low credit rating: "Much of the budget challenge now faced by the state is linked to its repeated inability to achieve and sustain the savings sought from enacted solutions, including one-shot revenues."

State leaders have offered some ideas this year to permanently improve the budget outlook. Schwarzenegger has asked lawmakers to craft an initiative to build a stronger "rainy-day fund" and control spending in good years. He also wants to cut future pension costs.

Democrats have proposed a tax swap that would eventually generate $3 billion more annually, though the LAO says it would raise middle-class taxes. Senate Democrats previously wanted to shed about $3 billion to $4 billion in annual costs by making counties more responsible for local services.

The problem is, the permanent changes are controversial. Public-sector unions don't like the governor's ideas, while Republicans oppose higher taxes.

Fred Silva, a former legislative budget aide and adviser with the think tank California Forward, said governors as far back as Ronald Reagan and Pat Brown relied on timing shifts to balance budgets. But the state paid extra in subsequent years to return accounting policies to normal.

Larry Gerston, political science professor at San Jose State University, in part blamed the 1990 term limits law, since lawmakers and governors have more incentive to push budget problems onto their successors.

Gerston said most budget tricks have been exhausted. "Now they have to get really exotic," he said.

Asked about budget gimmicks, Senate Republican leader Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta, observed, "We've been through all of the couch cushions already."

Silva disagrees.

"Some have suggested that we've reached the end of finding those things," Silva said, "and I would submit to you that you never reach the end because you will find things to do."