“Our economy is getting worse,” began Governor Pataki’s first ad a dozen years ago when he began his longshot bid for the state’s top job.

The candidates this year don’t have to worry about defeating a brand-name incumbent like Mario Cuomo, but they are following the predictable script that Governor Pataki borrowed from President Clinton’s War Room: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Eliot Spitzer recently compared the upstate economy to the Appalachia, the American emblem of economic distress. William Weld wants to make the first $75,000 in income tax free, a creative pander that has a better chance of increasing his popularity than actually happening. As for the second tier, Thomas Suozzi is only on the map because he’s been railing against out-of-control Medicaid costs for years. And John Faso’s relevance stems from his longtime reputation as a fiscal conservative.

Talking about the economy, however, is a lot easier than making a difference – especially upstate, where Wall Street’s bounty has little impact. Governor Pataki and Senator Clinton can tell you this from personal experience.

The governor’s upstate record reveals plenty of effort with few results. Of course, you could argue the situation would be even worse if Mr. Pataki hadn’t been trying. Senator Clinton won over upstaters by acknowledging problems and making specific promises for improvement. She hasn’t exactly delivered.

As The Buffalo News recently noted, Mrs. Clinton traveled upstate extensively during the 2000 campaign offering assurances about job creation. One of her television commercials declared, “Hillary has a serious plan to create 200,000 new jobs upstate.” The paper points out that six years later, the upstate region continues to shed jobs.

Mrs. Clinton has a literally Clintonian excuse: Republicans in Washington abandoned the Clinton-era economic policies she believes would have created jobs. Perhaps she’s right. Probably she’s not.

But talking about the economy is appealing to all voters. Those hoping for better times find the talk inspiring, while those already enjoying prosperity find the talk reassuring.

The phrase “the economy” has become a political euphemism for money. Mrs. Clinton’s focus on jobs, Mr. Spitzer’s focus on economic growth and Mr. Suozzi’s talk about Medicaid all dance around the concept Mr. Weld strategically tackles head-on: More cash in our pockets.

Focusing on giving voters more money to spend is a proven political tactic. Mayor Bloomberg enacted record tax increases but manages to win credit for tax rebates. State lawmakers are so impressed that they’re copying the idea of refunding money to voters instead of letting them keep that money in the first place.

The twin promises of job creation and tax cuts have their obvious appeal. But job creation remains highly unpredictable. And cutting taxes is irresponsible without first considering what neglected areas of public policy might need a cash infusion more than taxpayers do.

There’s certainly a good argument for refunding money government doesn’t need, and probably an even better argument that government shouldn’t take the money in the first place. But there should also be debate about whether government is actually spending enough money on the right projects.

Clearly Medicaid spending is out of control, pensions are too generous, and some government agencies could be smaller. That leaves a crucial question that receives very little attention: Do the savings belong in our pockets or somewhere else?

Somewhere else includes a wide array of possibilities: Paying down debt, improving schools, protecting public facilities from terrorists, subsidizing affordable housing, funding creative transportation projects.

Transportation projects might top the list. As we saw in Bay Ridge the other day, our roads are literally swallowing cars. In Manhattan right now, the Department of Transportation is busy repaving streets that haven’t been adequately prepared for new pavement – meaning that the newly refinished Second and Eighth Avenues will be uneven and turn manholes into speed bumps that take a costly toll on cars and trucks.

On a larger scale, the metropolitan area hasn’t seen a new bridge or tunnel in decades. The population keeps growing but we’re doing very little to accommodate the additional people. The Second Avenue subway is supposedly on track but hardly a sure thing, the extension of the No. 7 subway line is of questionable benefit and the one-seat ride from Lower Manhattan to JFK does nothing for travel to Newark and La Guardia.

I’m not saying we should forgo tax cuts to solve any of these problems. I am saying we should talk about these problems during this unusual period of state and city budget surpluses that provides options we usually don’t have the luxury of considering. Maybe the statewide candidates – including the senatorial candidate who’s really running for national office – will engage a discussion of options instead of instinctively promising a new round of tax cuts.

Tax cuts might well make more sense than paying down debt or paying for capital projects with real-time cash. We should have that debate while we have the money to pay for it.

Mr. Goldin’s column appears regularly.