State politicians seem united in saying that income tax increases are off the table. In fact, a tax hike is not only possible, but likely. Already the groundwork is being laid. Later this spring, we'll see a strong push to boost rates.

That may seem hard to believe. After all, 45 percent of voters in November favored Question 1 - an initiative to abolish the income tax. That so many supported what amounted to a nuclear-bomb approach to tax-cutting sent shock waves through the political establishment. A proposed tax hike today probably would not garner even a majority in either the House or Senate, much less the super majority needed to withstand a promised gubernatorial veto.

But things are likely to change. Here's how.

In January, Gov. Mitt Romney offered up a mix of three approaches to bridge the state's $2.8 billion deficit.

One was to reduce state and local aid ($525 million) and eliminate the state's Prescription Advantage program ($100 million). The second involved savings from and reforms to major state programs such as Medicaid, the court system and higher education ($750 million). The third was new revenues from boosting fees, gambling ``mitigation'' and other items ($1.425 billion). These all add up to $2.8 billion, by the way.

On the surface, it sounded fine, but the numbers have begun to crumble under scrutiny.

For one, while many of Romney's reforms may have merit, the likelihood of them passing and the savings they claim seem dubious. For example, the higher education establishment has united in opposing most reforms of state colleges and universities ($100 million). Meanwhile, Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall not only lambasted Romney's cuts to the court system ($43 million), but said the system actually needed $25 million more.

And then there are the governor's new revenues. Over $400 million comes from suspect, one-time measures (such as the sale of closed human service facilities) that the moderate Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation called one-time fiscal gimmicks. Tobacco settlement money ($220 million) also looks doubtful because of Philip Morris' possible bankruptcy. Many of the budget's $639 million in new fees are questionable. For example, a budgeted $41 million in new revenues from the court system now looks to be more like $10 million. And Romney's casino ``blocking'' payments - a goofy idea to begin with - was taken off the table in favor of a limited licensing of video slot machine parlors. Don't count on that either.

By the end of this month, the Legislature will, in all likelihood, grant the governor's assumption that the deficit really is $2.8 billion. But it will also conclude that the governor's reforms and new revenues will fall far short.

So where will the difference come from? Not taxes. House Speaker Thomas Finneran and Senate President Robert Traviglini are too clever for that. Rather, they will propose vastly deeper reductions in local aid, human services and other key state programs.

And then the fun will begin.

For while voters may not want tax hikes, they are even more opposed to cuts in programs. (A recent Boston Globe poll made this clear: 55 percent oppose raising the income tax but even higher majorities - 73 percent when it comes to human services - oppose cutting various programs.)

And those cuts will be visible and painful. Even under Romney's original budget, for example, Boston is saying it has to close five schools, hire fewer cops and cut 1,700 jobs. Deeper cuts will be even more noticeable.

Add to that the inevitable, plaintive advertisements from teachers, nurses and other interest groups, and one will begin to see a drumbeat for new taxes. Members of the Legislature will face a Hobson's choice: voters angry about higher taxes or voters angry about cuts in local services.

Here's betting they choose taxes.

Why? They're less politically risky. Program cuts hit individuals hard while tax hikes impose broad, diffuse burdens. A shuttered neighborhood school has much more of an impact on people than does a small rise in income tax rates.

The counter-argument to this, of course, is an event seared in every politician's memory: 1990. That year, a furious electorate turned out pols who had supported Gov. Michael Dukakis' pleas for new taxes.

But today's world is different. This year's proposed cuts are more onerous. And, critically, Romney is no Dukakis. Back then, people thought government full of waste, fraud and abuse. Romney, presumably, tolerates none of that.

There's one other factor as well. The scenario I describe is really just a variation on the strategy Finneran successfully employed last year, when he almost single-handedly pushed through a delay in planned income tax cuts.

If it worked then, it very well may work now.

Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.