We can hike transit fares, raise college tuition, and tell charitable organizations that they're responsible for the vulnerable New Yorkers now receiving state assistance.

But asking those residents who benefited most from the boom years to contribute a little more?

That, according to Gov. David Paterson, "would only exacerbate the problem."

New York faces a genuine budget crisis. But our governor has yet to face up to what some of the most respected economists think: cutting public spending hurts the state economy far more than raising taxes, especially if tax increases are targeted to the state's wealthiest residents. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist and one of Paterson's own advisers, laid it out for the governor in a letter this past 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…"

While it's unpleasant to choose between tax increases and spending cuts, Stiglitz concluded, "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."

Spending cuts, not tax increases, would do the most to exacerbate the state's economic problems. Paterson has it exactly backward.

Asking high-income New Yorkers to pay more in the state's time of need not only makes economic sense, it's also a question of basic fairness. 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.

Yet New York's tax system has an overall regressive effect, asking high-income households to contribute a smaller proportion of their income in taxes than low- and middle-income households pay. Requiring those New Yorkers who benefited disproportionately from New York's economic growth to give more back to their state would help to right the balance.

The governor seems haunted by the possibility that the state's wealthy residents will flee if they're asked to contribute a bit more to the well-being of their state. Yet the feared exodus didn't happen to any significant extent when New York raised taxes on the highest earners after 9/11 or when New Jersey did the same in 2004. And it's unlikely to happen now. Instead, policymakers should worry about the rest of New York's residents: folks who barely saw their real incomes budge during our recent boom, and will be hard hit by a downturn exacerbated by state spending cuts.

The governor's economic message is all about shared sacrifice. If he really means it, he should ask those who have sacrificed the least — affluent New Yorkers — to assume a little more of the burden. That's the reasonable and fair thing to do.