The former tends to provide a governor’s big-picture view of Minnesota. Regardless of the officeholder, what the speech lacks in specifics it makes up for with sweeping imagery and political sound bites. The latter is more grounded in fiscal reality. After all, it must get to a detailed bottom line, political rhetoric or not.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s 2009 State of the State speech last week — complete with imagery of Minnesota kitchen tables and a top priority of massive tax cuts for business — certainly met those big-picture expectations.

Now Minnesotans await Pawlenty’s detailed budget proposal.

When you hear it, probably next week, remember that Pawlenty paints a picture of Minnesotans huddled around their kitchen tables grappling with tough economic times. Ask yourself what parts of his proposed budget spread those costs and benefits equitably across kitchen tables statewide.

The largest part of the governor’s answer is to protect and improve the state’s job market by cutting the state’s business tax rate in half by 2015.

Politically, that’s not a surprise, although it certainly evokes images of boardroom tables, not kitchen tables. Still, fiscally, there is merit in examining this as a long-term strategy in balancing the state’s economic health with the services government provides.

However, given two daunting short-term realities, now seems a questionable time for such a broad tax cut.

First, while the governor failed to mention it specifically in his speech, the state is projected to spend $5.2 billion more than it takes in by fiscal 2012. Can it really afford to take in less revenue?

Second, these are not good times for many businesses. As much as we’d like to believe this tax break would encourage them to keep or add jobs in Minnesota, simple survival instincts lead us to believe many would just put it toward battered bottom lines.

So unless Pawlenty’s pending budget proposal builds a convincing case about how this would solve the short-term budget challenges, we’d suggest putting it on hold until better economic times.

The same should not be said about a few of the governor’s other business-based tax proposals.

The best example: His idea of a 25 percent refundable tax credit for small-business owners who reinvest in their business quickly. If it includes clear accountability measures, this narrowly focused approach could work short and long term.

Less clear, though, are who pays the costs and receives the benefits involving ideas such as:

A capital gains exemption for qualifying investments in small businesses.

Giving businesses a 100 percent exemption immediately from the sales tax when they buy equipment.

Letting businesses deduct immediately instead of annually the depreciation for the equipment.

These certainly provide a financial boost for businesses. How they benefit the state’s crisis needs to be proven when the governor reveals the details of his budget proposal.