Day two of the new fiscal year is upon us and discussions over a new state spending plan -- if they're going on at all -- are awfully quiet. So without actual news to offer a distraction, let's examine this year's squabble over specifics. Or lack thereof.

Everyone agrees that the gap between anticipated expenses and revenues is about $15 billion, with Democrats and Republicans predictably split over tax increases versus deeper spending to solve the problem.

But what they have in common, thus far, is a lack of specifics beyond the broad talking points.

For Republicans, this is a familiar criticism. In recent years, GOP legislators have consistently lamented the total amount of state expenditures and have just as consistently been criticized for not being specific about exactly which services they'd scale back or eliminate to make the books balance. In last summer's budget impasse, it took about three weeks of stalemate before Senate Republicans put forward a list of cuts totaling about $842 million. And even then, it was another month before a budget deal was struck.

This year, the list needs to be much, much longer. When I asked the question directly to Assembly Budget Vice-Chair Roger Niello (R-Sacramento) yesterday on KQED's public affairs program Forum, he would only say this: "We have, for the last several months... offered suggestions, not with regard to the entire budget, but with regard to approaches on broad issues."

But Democrats also seem to be on shaky ground. Granted, they've made it very clear about the kinds of programs they support. But they're struggling to explain what tax increases they want to pay for all of it.

Senate Democrats have pegged the need for extra cash at about $11 billion; Assembly Democrats have penciled in about $6 billion in new revenues. But what specific taxes would they raise? "We wanted to negotiate that with all parties," said Assembly Budget Chair John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) during the same broadcast yesterday. "It will really take something substantial on the revenue side."

Yes, it will. And the items mentioned publicly so far... tax loopholes, canceling some tax credits, even the reinstatement of a higher tax bracket for the most wealthy... don't get you far enough to make the books balance.

Not surprisingly, spinners for both parties blame the other guy. Just take this exchange from the new tit-for-tat online feature hosted by Capitol Weekly, featuring Assembly GOP communications chief Morgan Crinklaw and Assembly Democratic impresario Steve Maviglio:

CRINKLAW: "If you’re so confident that all the fat has been trimmed from government, then why are Democrats being so reluctant to tell us which taxes you would raise? Are you afraid the people of California would realize that they elected a bunch of spending addicts that can’t quit?"

MAVIGLIO: "The real mystery this year is where the $17 billion in cuts you are proposing will come from. The Mystery Writers of America are sponsoring a 'Edgar' prize contest this year for the best mystery entry. Maybe you should apply."

Give them points for creativity. But the lack of specifics highlights the more fundamental problem: without a clear sense of what the options are, the public can't really weigh in on what's more -- or less --objectionable.

Conventional political wisdom says that specificity only leads a wide assortment of interest groups to mount huge PR opposition campaigns. However, the vagueness of the debate thus far only reinforces the oversimplified perception that the Legislature is incapable of solving problems.