LANSING — Gov. Jennifer Granholm learned this past year that her skin is a lot thicker than she thought when it comes to handling the slings and arrows of politics.

She’s going to need rhinoceros hide as she heads into a second term in January.

With a weak economy and sluggish revenues again bedeviling the state, the Democratic governor already knows she will have to cut spending and come up with more revenue in the year ahead.

That challenge could actually be an opportunity for the 47-year-old Granholm to get the state on sound financial footing for the first time in years, a move that likely would require changing the state’s tax structure and possibly increasing taxes.

“It’s a precarious move,” said Craig Ruff of Public Sector Consultants, a nonpartisan Lansing think tank. “But the alternative is just as precarious.”

Without changes, Michigan’s tax structure will continue to generate less money for the general fund — which covers universities, prisons, revenue sharing for local governments and most state departments — than it did 10 years ago.

Once inflation is factored in, general fund revenues have been shrinking since 1999 and now account for only 69 percent of the fiscal 1996 total, a percentage that falls to 66 percent by fiscal 2008.

The drop has meant less money for universities, which have raised tuition, sometimes by double digits; cutbacks in state services; and fewer police officers as local governments have seen state revenue-funding payments slashed or stagnate.

School aid revenue has grown, but recent annual increases of around 2.5 percent still fall behind the rate of inflation, shrinking schools’ purchasing power as they fight to deal with rising health care costs and other issues.

The school aid budget came in around $100 million short in the fiscal year that just ended and faces a much bigger hole in the current year, which could lead to cuts in school funding.

Some policymakers argue the state’s budget woes have presented an opportunity to tightly control state spending, leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets and fueling economic growth.

But economists at the University of Michigan said in a recent report that “it is hard to believe that one-third of fiscal 1996 general fund spending paid for either ‘fat’ or nonessential public goods and services.”

Growing its way out of the hole — provided the economy ever gets back up to speed, which is unlikely until 2009 — no longer is an option for Michigan, many economists say.

But the political realities make increasing taxes or even changing them a tough sell.

While Granholm significantly raised the cigarette tax during her first term, tapped tobacco settlement revenues and increased some fees, she largely stuck to cuts to deal with $4 billion in budget shortfalls during her first four years.

Coit Cook Ford III, a Detroit political and public policy consultant who considers himself a Republican, said that has to change in her second term.

“Her first term, the governor ... was an extremely conservative governor,” he said. “Her strategy and approach was almost one that said, ‘I’m going to wait for the recovery to come, and I’m going to hold my cards close to my chest and try to protect certain programs.’ ... It was like she kept waiting for the economy to rebound, and the rebound never came.”

Now, Coit said, the governor needs to do much more.

“She’s got to demonstrate that she can effectively respond to the perpetual fiscal crisis of Michigan government, and stabilize that system,” he said. “She’s going to have to get out in front and guide events and set the agenda and work forcefully to enact that agenda.”

Erika King, a political science professor at Grand Valley State University, said Granholm scored a solid victory in November, but she won’t be able to push through many new initiatives until the state’s fiscal policies are fixed.

“It’s all about the budget at this point, and revenues,” King said.

Time will be of the essence. Not only does the state need to implement a plan to deal with a replacement for the Single Business Tax, which expires at the end of 2007, but political realities are likely to narrow Granholm’s window of opportunity for bold new initiatives to about a year and a half.

By mid-2008, state House members — including the Democrats who will control that chamber come January — will be worrying about re-election in November and unlikely to push through any controversial measures. And Granholm will effectively be a lame duck through 2009 and 2010 since she can’t run for re-election because of term limits.

The governor has declined to say if she’s considering a general tax increase, saying only that she will outline her solutions the first week of February in her annual State of the State address and fiscal 2008 budget proposal.

But she did note in a recent news conference that “the tax structure of the state should be a 21st century tax structure,” which could signify a willingness to make changes.

Ruff said he’s expecting — or at least hoping — taxes will be part of the mix as Granholm moves into her second term. If they’re not, he says state government will continue becoming less relevant and incapable of meeting citizens’ demands for service.

“She and the Legislature have spent four years cutting and cutting,” he said. “The big question looms, how much more can you cut?

“Tackling that question requires the governor and the Legislature to talk about new taxes. It cannot be off the agenda,” he said.