A bill to restore balance to the state's unemployment trust fund has emerged from a divided Senate committee, promising a contentious debate in the Senate on a difficult issue.

The problem is real. The state's unemployment trust fund has run out of money because of the recession, forcing the state to obtain a $58 million line of credit from the federal government to cover more than $4 million in weekly unemployment benefits for jobless Vermonters. Patricia Moulton Powden, Vermont's commissioner of labor estimates that Vermont may end up borrowing $284 million from the federal government by 2013.

Borrowing at that level will be costly because the state must pay interest out of the General Fund. For 2011 alone, interest will amount to $5.8 million. In addition, employers must pay penalties to the federal government, which could amount to more than $24 million by 2013.

To restore the unemployment trust fund, legislators have three avenues: They can raise taxes on workers; they can raise taxes on employers; and they can reduce benefits paid to the unemployed. Finding the right balance among these three is the tricky part.

The bill passed on a 3-2 vote by the Senate Committee on Economic Development hits workers hard, instituting a payroll tax that would raise $100 million over four years. In addition, an increase in the portion of workers' wages that is subject to the employer tax would raise $200 million over four years. Benefit reductions would save an additional $100 million over four years.

The Douglas administration doesn't like the payroll tax because it is a new tax. Sen. Doug Racine, a Democrat on the committee, voted against the bill because it targets workers.

But the money has to come from somewhere.

Democrats have argued that the trust fund has become depleted because over the years the contribution made by employers has lagged. The portion of wages that is subject to taxation has barely increased since 1983, meaning that as wages have risen, the percentage of wages subject to the tax paid by employers has sharply decreased.

Meanwhile, the Douglas administration wants to avoid a payroll tax on workers by reducing maximum weekly benefits from $425 to $400.

It seems everybody is going to have to give a little to solve this problem. And yet the payroll tax is not likely to survive the legislative process, with Republicans and Democrats both opposed to it. Also, reducing unemployment benefits by about $100 a month smacks of kicking them while they're down. In a recession, taking money out of people's hands is not a good way of getting the economy moving.

Legislators need to keep in mind the economic facts about those at the low end of the totem pole. When workers and the unemployed are asked to absorb an economic blow, they have no one to whom they can pass on their costs or their losses. Employers can pass on higher costs in the form of higher prices, and if employers have been getting a break over the past 25 years, then an upward adjustment of their payments makes sense.

And yet compromise is likely to exact some cost from workers, which raises an interesting question about shared sacrifice. If workers or the unemployed are forced to accept higher taxes or smaller unemployment checks, then why shouldn't we ask people at the other end of the economic spectrum to contribute to the common good as well. So far, legislators are not talking of higher taxes. But if people at the lower end of the spectrum are being asked to ante up, a temporary, tiered income tax hike that asks the wealthy to share in the sacrifice would not be out line. Oregon voters approved a similar tax in a ballot vote earlier this year.

Adjustments at the federal level may reduce or eliminate the interest on money the state borrows from the federal government, which ought to ease the immediate crisis. But lawmakers ought to remember that when they talk about shared sacrifice they need to make sure everyone is allowed to share.