Gov. David A. Paterson understandably is fed up with those forces that have refused to do anything about solving the state's serious budget crisis. He has shown leadership in attempting to reduce the deficit, but always has been thwarted by the Legislature. And when he asked state unions for givebacks, quite common now in both the private and public sectors, they thumbed their noses at him.

So now, when he could just sit out the remaining part of his term, he has decided again to act. Before he leaves office, he will set up layoffs in the state's work force.

It's an extraordinary step, and a drastic and painful action brought about by drastic and painful circumstances. But just as in the private sector, employee costs are a major part of the budget problem ... about 20 percent of state spending ... and must be addressed.

The old rule of municipal employees making less money than workers in the private sector has changed, and government employment offers huge advantages in benefits and work rules. If Paterson is to fulfil his duties as the state's chief executive facing a $9.2 billion deficit, he has no alternative. He proposed steps less severe than layoffs, particularly wage freezes and a series of state worker furloughs, but has been frustrated at every turn by a dithering Legislature, recalcitrant union leaders and by-the-book judges.

So he has ordered his staff to start drawing up the details of a massive state layoff plan. The number is uncertain now, but would surely measure in the thousands. The plan would take effect Jan. 1 ... the expiration date of a no-layoff deal the governor struck with the unions representing state employees in return for the unions' acceptance of a plan to grant future state workers substantially smaller pension benefits than those of current employees.

That's also the day that someone else becomes governor. And the day 212 someones, some new, some old, are sworn in as members of the New York Assembly and Senate.

Paterson's goal had been to find $250 million toward the $9.2 billion budget gap ... not even 3 percent of the total need ... in the state's payroll. That's a low goal; a 5 percent reduction in work force, common elsewhere, would reduce the deficit by about 10 percent. Given that the state's personnel costs are now nearly $19 billion, and are estimated to top $22.2 billion in four years if nothing is done, there can be no question but that balancing the budget in any sustainable form will have to include substantial reductions in that line item.

Analysts and think tanks who watch this sort of thing have worked out that the state's payroll has hovered around a full-time equivalency count of 230,000 for the last five years, even as payrolls in the private sector have been slashed. The average cost of maintaining each public worker, meanwhile, has been growing due to the ever-higher costs of benefits, particularly pension costs and health care for retirees and current workers.

Some serious give-backs in those benefits, even simply bringing them in line with those found in the private sector, could save millions of dollars and thousands of state jobs. But, apparently, the public employee unions, their leaders and their bought-and-paid-for supporters in the Legislature aren't willing to even consider that ... even it if means that workers whose jobs might have been saved will have to be jettisoned for the good of those who will remain.

This year's crop of candidates for governor and Legislature should say, specifically, what they would do to balance the state budget. They should outline what they would expect of public employees and local governments, schools and universities, taxpayers and those in need of services, without smoke, mirrors, debt and budget trickery.

The voters ... and those among them who work for the rest of us ... need to know.