Gov. David Paterson had taken some heat for the 2009-2010 budget proposal he released last week, and some of the criticism is certainly valid.

But the loudest protests - those coming from groups decrying places where he proposed spending cuts - are largely without merit given the grave economic crisis the state is facing. The problem with just about every group fighting a spending decrease is that they do not come up with a reasonable alternative place to cut.

Most of the spending-cut critics actually call for some form of higher taxes. That thought is scary, given the long list of tax and fee increases already packed into Paterson's proposal.

The truth is Paterson should have gone further with spending cuts than he did. His plan keeps the state's general fund spending flat, and overall spending would go up 1.1 percent. In normal years for Albany, this would be labeled extremely conservative spending.

But just look at what Paterson still had to do to balance his spending. There are taxes on soda and haircuts, movie tickets and buses, cable TV and sporting events. Then there's higher fees to take civil service tests or use state parks. How about higher tuition at state higher education institutions?

And that's just a small sampling.

Paterson's biggest failing is that he seems to have put together the budget without any thought toward the process that lies ahead.

The Legislature almost always finds a way to add spending to the executive budget proposal. Legislators, after all, have to answer more directly to their constituents and more frequently (they're up for election every two years, while gubernatorial elections happen every four years).

Paterson didn't recognize this reality with his proposal, so now he's set up a budget season that despite getting started a month early, could be uglier and more drawn out than any we've seen before.