Think the president has it tough on the economy? Try talking to a governor.

Some highlights of the 137 new or increased taxes and fees proposed by Paterson: a tax on digital entertainment purchases, a tax on calorie-heavy soft drinks, a tax on hair cuts, a tax increase on car rentals, a tax increase on alcoholic beverages, a tax increase on cable TV, and a tax increase on owning a car. Usually, bringing in this much tax revenue is a Democrat’s fantasy. But Paterson wouldn’t even get to spend the money on any shiny new programs since the state is so burdened by its deficit. It’s reminiscent of when you were 14 years old and got a $30 check in the mail from your aunt, but you couldn’t spend it because you already owed your parents so much money.

Before we extrapolate New York’s situation to a national scale, it’s useful to note one key way the state’s situation is unique. It has arrived at this moment because its tax revenues were so heavily reliant on Wall Street’s profits. Other states won’t have that issue, nor will they have a Democratic governor so willing to raise taxes.

But other states will have to cope with budget deficits just as severe. To reiterate, 41 states are staring at deficits, and most don’t yet know how bad the damage will be. Scott Pattison, the executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers, told The Big Money that we already know Nevada, California, and maybe Ohio could turn to tax increases to spare already-decimated public programs. Other states could follow suit, although legislation would be tougher to pass where there’s a heavy Republican presence. (Ohio, for the record, is one of them.) For reference, Democrats control the legislature and governors’ office in only 17 states (New York included as of 2009).

An increase of taxes on the state level could have an impact nationally. Obama and federal economic luminaries are clearly hesitant to increase taxes. Throughout the campaign, Obama promised to extinguish Bush’s cuts for the wealthy but reneged once elected for fear of raising taxes in the midst of a recession. Instead, Obama is pumping money into the federal budget, determined to stimulate the economy by putting out $675 billion to $775 billion of federal money. To reiterate, local bodies don’t have that option because of budget-balance laws on the books; there is no state of emergency for the 50 nifty states. As a result, significant efforts to enforce statewide taxes would counteract some of the help coming from the feds.

Obama’s economic minds seem to agree that the economy needs as much money circulating within it as possible. While the prevention of new taxes on the federal level allows that to happen, the institution of new taxes on the state level hinders it. Taxes take money out of the economy and put it in state coffers. Theoretically, this could lead to more jobs because of an increase in services. But there’s no guarantee that the money would create jobs, especially with so many programs being cut. Picture the situation between the feds and the states as a stacked Venn diagram, where both circles totally overlap, influencing everything the other does. The interconnectedness of the economy is unavoidable.

For his part, Obama seems to understand that the governors are stuck. When he met with more than 40 of them at the National Governors Association meeting earlier this month, he said he knew they’d been left “with the impossible choice of either helping families at the risk of violating your constitution or upholding your constitution at the expense of helping families.”