Election Day may be six weeks away, but it’s not too soon to say that John Faso is the right choice for governor of New York. We carry no grudge against Attorney General Spitzer. His campaign has been refusing to speak with reporters of The New York Sun, following our Jacob Gershman’s reporting on how the Democratic candidate has been using a jet provided by an individual who will have gambling interests awaiting a decision by the state. But we don’t mind saying that we think a lot more of him than he does of us. He’s a brilliant individual and made a wonderful visit with our editorial board. This election, however, is about principles of political economy, and over many years, Mr. Faso has displayed an adherence to the principles we value. He is the candidate who can be expected to do so once the pressure starts building in Albany.

This is evident in Mr. Faso’s platform, which, while we haven’t always agreed with each of his proposals, makes clear that he, far more than General Spitzer, has a strategy for addressing New York’s challenges, starting with taxes. Few issues will weigh as heavily on New York voters this year. New Yorkers pay some of the highest combined state and local levies in the nation. Oppressive taxation is strangling the state’s economy, especially upstate. On this head, Mr. Faso is miles ahead of Mr. Spitzer. Especially in respect to local property taxes that fund education, Mr. Faso’s plan isn’t perfect. But the good far outweighs the bad, and his plan is miles ahead of Mr. Spitzer’s.

Mr. Faso understands that government spending drives tax increases, an insight that seems to have eluded Mr. Spitzer thus far. Thus, Mr. Faso’s property tax plan is a multi-pronged approach that focuses as much on controlling spending increases as it does on taxpayer relief. The Republican proposes limiting school tax increases to 4% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower, except under certain limited circumstances like enrollment increases or a voter override.

Mr. Faso is also willing to go up against unions on behalf of taxpayers. Repeal of the union-friendly Wicks Law (which governs most public construction contracts) and Triborough Amendment (which removes incentives for unions to negotiate by preserving built-in raises even without a contract) are key components of his plan. So is giving localities the option of shifting their public employees to defined-contribution pension plans from the more traditional defined-benefit plan.

On tax reform, Mr. Faso’s determination to expand the School Tax Relief, or STAR, program created by Governor Pataki is not so far from that of Mr. Spitzer. STAR is nothing but a scheme to shift the tax burden, applying state income tax revenues to property tax relief and often providing a perverse incentive to increase school spending by insulating homeowners from the effects of the higher spending. Mr. Faso’s focus on spending, however, redeems him in a race where his opponent has provided only vague ideas about possible savings elsewhere in the state budget, ideas that are far less convincing than Mr. Faso’s clear set of goals.

Mr. Faso has also rolled out a comprehensive proposal to reform income and business taxes. Mr. Faso proposes reducing the number of income-tax brackets to four from five, while increasing the threshold for the highest bracket to $80,000 for a married couple from the current $40,000. He would then index the brackets to inflation, eliminating “bracket creep” under which inflation pushes more and more people into higher brackets. Mr. Faso says other aspects of his reform would bring the combined city and state income tax rates on city residents below 10% for the first time in half a century, and he would eliminate the state capital gains and death taxes.

On a range of other issues of concern to New Yorkers, and especially to city residents, Mr. Faso would be a much better governor than Mr. Spitzer. The Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit is a gun at the heads of New York taxpayers. Mr. Spitzer is engaging in wrangling over how the city and state should split payments of anywhere between $4.7 billion and $10 billion over several years on city schools that already waste much of the currently high per pupil spending. Mr. Faso, in contrast, has suggested that he wouldn’t spend any money to fund a CFE ruling that is, in his view and ours, unconstitutional and that wouldn’t do anything to fix education anyway.

Electricity supply is a looming crisis in the city, yet Mr. Spitzer has endorsed shutting down the Indian Point nuclear plant that generates about 11% of the state’s supply. Mr. Faso has told us, “We need more generating capacity, not less,” and has also expressed an interest in improvements to existing transmission lines that would make it easier for the city to import more power from electricity-rich corners of the state. Medicaid fraud has been running rampant during Mr. Spitzer’s tenure as attorney general while he’s been too busy pursuing dubious legal actions against New York’s economic motor on Wall Street. Mr. Faso has unveiled a Medicaid reform program that would both tackle fraud and help control costs on items like long-term care.

These columns have no illusions about the uphill nature of Mr. Faso’s fight in this election. His campaign hasn’t been helped by the defaults of the leaders of his own party and the failure of Governor Pataki to work toward strengthening the GOP in the state. Mr. Spitzer’s escapades on Wall Street may not have resulted in any actual convictions and may make little economic sense. But they have succeeded in building his name recognition. Mr. Spitzer has sought to present himself as a centrist Democrat, and there is an argument that his prosecutorial personality is just what Albany needs. But what we think it needs is staying power on fundamental principles of limited government, free markets, and economic growth. In Mr. Faso we see the kind of Republican who has maintained over many years, in and out of power, a fidelity to exactly the combination of these principles that New York needs.