Perhaps it was the report of a second, much larger wave of mortgage defaults on the horizon.

Or the data that show consumer spending is in retreat despite billions of dollars in government payments aimed at stimulating the economy.

Or the fact that there’s enough bad economic news for one of the state’s largest newspapers to launch a daily series dubbed “The Money Squeeze.”

Whatever prompted it, Gov. Chris Gregoire’s move Monday to freeze state hiring and cut travel, equipment and gas expenses was welcome, if overdue.

Gregoire’s move, which her office said was in response to a $60 million drop in June state revenue announced three weeks ago, could help the state save $90 million.

That’s pennies on the dollar for what the state will have to trim next year in order to bridge an expected $2.7 billion budget shortfall.

But Gregoire’s order – binding only on those agencies that report to her – is still significant for two reasons. First, halting growth of the state payroll now means that the state will have to lay off fewer workers if the worst comes to pass.

More importantly, the belt tightening exercise is the clearest sign yet that Gregoire recognizes the growing gap between what the state takes in and what it spends.

The governor has spent too much time disputing estimates of the coming shortfall and dismissing suggestions that state spending was setting Washington up for a fall.

But at the same time, Gregoire’s political opponents go too far in laying all the blame for pending budget troubles at her feet. She may not have been the model of fiscal restraint, but neither has she been its nemesis.

She set the tone for a 2008 legislative session that ended with lawmakers leaving $835 million in reserves. And the state’s new rainy day account may have begun as a Republican idea, but it took Gregoire’s backing to get it passed.

Washington is far from the only state that has been slow to react to the economic downturn. Nationwide, state and local government spending rose three times faster than revenues in the second quarter of 2008.

Much of the additional spending is a response to growing public demands for the likes of smaller class sizes and stiffer criminal penalities and to federal decisions that have shifted more costs onto states.

Unlike the feds, Washington state has to balance its budget. Whoever is in the governor’s mansion come next January faces a tough job. That is clearly not lost on either of the leading candidates.