Now that Gov. David Paterson has outlined a specific plan for dealing with the growing state deficit, we don't want to hear state lawmakers offer any criticism unless they are also able to offer some specific alternatives.

Paterson on Wednesday proposed a deficit reduction plan that would save $2 billion this year and $3.2 billion in 2009-10. In addition to a mid-year reduction in the growth of school aid, Medicaid cuts and an increase in tuition to state and city colleges, the plan seeks to cut salary increases for some state workers.

The proposals will obviously be met unfavorably by a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons, but Paterson shouldn't have to take the heat alone.

For their part, the state Assembly and Senate had been asked to come up with plans of their own, but neither appears to have made any progress ahead of next week's special session of the Legislature.

Leaders of both houses followed up on Paterson's speech Wednesday by saying, well, not very much.

Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith issued a statement saying that his conference was “considering a number of proposals ... to cut wasteful spending ...” while Assembly Ways and Means Committee Chair Herman Farrell said that a hearing would be convened to examine Paterson's proposal and to take testimony from a laundry list of special interest groups.

Whatever the eventual responses turn out to be, they had better be more than simple attacks on Paterson's plan.

State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli rightly pointed out Wednesday that “irresponsible budget gimmicks” are what got the state into this mess to begin with.

What's needed now are real reductions in spending, even if that means making some unpopular decisions.