They aren't necessarily consistent.

I haven't investigated the "why" at this point, but in one of the alternatives -- taking a deduction for state income taxes vs. not doing so and increasing the income distribution deduction in a like amount -- appears to result in a slight ($27) difference in overall liability due to the triggering of the tax on net passive investment income in one of the alternatives.  I am not going to bother to confirm whether this is correct until I know which alternative is the correct one.

Intuitively, it strikes me that both the trust and its beneficiary's getting a benefit from the same deduction for state income taxes paid smacks of double dipping.  I recognize the separate legal status of the trust and its beneficiary may come into play, but nevertheless it gives me pause.