Whoever is sworn in as mayor in January will have to figure out immediately how to close what is projected to be a $4.5 billion budget gap, but a new report by the Manhattan Institute finds that the Democratic mayoral candidates have each proposed programs that would increase city spending as well as taxes, rather than cut costs.

The four Democratic candidates have proposed new spending plans ranging from about $800 million to more than $2 billion. The congressman in the race, Anthony Weiner, proposes spending the most on new programs, with a total of $2.2 billion. The frontrunner, Fernando Ferrer, comes in a close second, proposing $2 billion, according to the report. The City Council speaker, Gifford Miller, advanced spending proposals totaling $1.5 billion, and the Manhattan borough president, C. Virginia Fields, offered plans that would cost $832 million.

“We should really be talking about cutting spending not hiking it,” the report’s author, Nicole Gelinas, said. “I think voters should be very concerned because we have four candidates who are proposing to hike taxes, not as a last resort during a fiscal emergency but as a first resort to hike spending.”

Ms. Gelinas said the failure of the candidates to talk about their plans to plug the hole in next year’s budget is “typical,” but she said that doesn’t mean it’s okay.

“Four years ago, we saw much the same thing,” she said. “But four years ago was before 9/11.We didn’t know the effect in the city of the recession that had already occurred. This time they really have no such excuse.”

The report goes through spending and tax programs proposed by each candidate, starting with Mr. Weiner.

His biggest spending priority is $800 million to retain qualified teachers. He would also spend $196.2 million to hire 3,800 new police officers. All of his Democratic rivals also want more cops hired.

The report notes that Mr. Weiner has proposed a new tax on “millionaires” to pay for some of his initiatives. He also proposes eliminating Madison Square Garden’s tax exemption, saving $12 million, and pledges a 5% reduction in city spending each year.

But Ms. Gelinas wrote that she doubts Mr. Weiner’s ability to cut more than he spends, and doubts whether he can get more money out of Albany and Washington than Mr. Bloomberg has managed to get.

“They’re right that Anthony’s campaign is the one with the most new ideas for New York City, but their analysis of our cuts, savings, and new revenue sound just like what you would expect from a Republican think tank during campaign season,” Mr. Weiner’s spokesman, Anson Kaye, said.

The next candidate in the report is Mr. Ferrer, who would dedicate the most money to his “school investment plan,” which would cost $1 billion and pay for new education programs. He proposes a stock transfer tax – a levy last used in 1981 – to pay for the plan.

Ms. Gelinas writes that the new tax could actually “drive trading away from Wall Street” and raises questions about whether Albany would permit Mr. Ferrer to pursue his policy goals.

Mr. Ferrer’s spokeswoman, Jen Bluestein, said, “The Manhattan Institute is simply wrong on the facts. From education to health care to putting more cops on the street, Freddy Ferrer has introduced bold plans that don’t unfairly burden New York City taxpayers the way Mike Bloomberg has.”

Ms. Bluestein added that the education plan would be paid for in full by the proposed stock-transfer tax, which, she said, would “leverage the $23 billion in Campaign for Fiscal Equity funds that Albany owes our children.”

The next candidate on the list, Mr. Miller, would dedicate $785 million toward his goal of reducing the sizes of classes in public elementary schools. His second most expensive project, revitalizing the subway system, would cost $500 million. He also proposes an across-the-board tax cut for city businesses.

“While a tax cut for businesses would encourage economic growth, a massive new tax on insurance companies to pay for it would likely force some jobs away from the city,” Ms. Gelinas wrote. She also questioned whether Albany would comply with his taxing goals. Mr. Miller’s spokesman Reggie Johnson, did not return an e-mail requesting comment.

Ms. Fields’s most expensive proposal is her education plan, which the Manhattan Institute said would cost $460 million. Ms. Gelinas praised the Manhattan president, who she said is the “only Democratic mayoral candidate who has not proposed a large, direct tax hike on city taxpayers to fund her proposals.” But she wrote that Ms. Fields would need approval from Albany to implement a new commuter tax – a proposal the Legislature already rejected when Mr. Bloomberg pushed for it. Ms. Fields’s spokeswoman, Kirsten Powers, said, “The Manhattan Institute study confirms that Fields is the most fiscally responsible candidate, which is why Citizens Union endorsed her, citing her commitment to paying down the city’s long-term debt.”

Ms. Gelinas said that before the November election the Manhattan Institute would release a report detailing Mr. Bloomberg’s spending and tax priorities.