Beale does a great job of contextualizing Pataki's plan. She writes: "More than half of the tax cut would go to those in the upper 10% in New York, and the state's estate tax would be eliminated. Id. New York deficits are expected to approach $4 billion by early 2009, due largely to the tax cuts projected." This is all particularly worrisome against the backdrop of public and private sector pension freezing.
Beale goes on to sum up the importance of distributive justice neatly:
Shifting taxes away from the rich at the same time that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer does a double disservice--it keeps revenues from government that should support its programs, from disease intervention to counterterrorism, and it dumps more of the burden of supporting government programs on people who are increasingly struggling to manage.
Towards the end of her post, Beale gets into the problem of placing cash value on deeply moral decisions. It's a thought-provoking piece of writing, and well worth checking out. There are so many problems with Pataki's logic. He assumes that tax cuts will definitely "unleash" greater economic opportunity. He discounts the plain fact that tax cuts aimed directly at the richest citizens will not do very much for those with less income. But on top of the all of this (or perhaps underlying all of it) is the moral fiber of our government.