As I noted last month in the Albany Times Union:

“New York is the most unequal state in the nation, with income disparities that have been growing rapidly. During the past two business cycles, the incomes of the top 5 percent of New York families grew eight times faster than those of New York's middle-income families and nearly 13 times faster than low-income families, according to a study by the nonpartisan, labor-supported Fiscal Policy Institute. Without the state's substantial investments in public goods like an educated work force and an efficient transportation system, these gains for the state's wealthiest residents might not have been possible.”

The reality is that both basic fairness and basic economics recommend that New York pursue broad-based income tax increases on its wealthiest citizens – a solution Governor Paterson has so far refused to consider – rather than a mix of harsh service cuts and regressive tax increases. As Paterson’s own economic advisor, Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz told him in a public letter back in March:

"In a recession, you want to raise (or not decrease) the level of total spending — by households, businesses and government — in the economy. That keeps people employed and buying things, and makes it more likely businesses will want to invest to serve that consumer demand. Budget cuts reduce the level of total spending. Raising taxes on high income households also will reduce spending, but by less than the amount of than the amount of tax increases since those with plenty of income typically spend only a fraction of their income…economic theory and evidence gives a clear and unambiguous answer: it is economically preferable to raise taxes on those with high incomes than to cut state expenditures."

Paterson should know better economically. And given the tremendous opposition his budget proposal has generated from all sides of the political spectrum, he should perhaps know better politically as well.