In the months following New Jersey governor Chris Christie's election, a debate swept across the state over the best way for New Jersey to make its budget for the upcoming year.
A large budget gap following years of irresponsible spending on the part of the state legislature is forcing the newly elected governor to find a way to make the state's ends meet.
He essentially had two options: the first being to reign in spending and reduce the bloated government bureaucracy or, raise taxes.
Despite New Jersey consistently ranking as having one of the highest tax rates in the country in every category ranging from property taxes to "sin" taxes, and hundreds of thousands leaving the state every year because of its inordinate cost of living, some in the state actually believed raising taxes further would make for smart fiscal policy.
Not surprisingly, those advocating for tax increases were the very people and interest groups that had the most to lose if Governor Christie finally said no to the public interest lobby that had created a culture of non-stop spending in Trenton.
Such lobbies, with help of labor unions and other welfare-state advocates, launched an assault on the governor's office. They claimed he was fighting for the rich at the expense of middle-class teachers, called the most recent proposition for a tax increase a "millionaire's tax" so as to prejudice the public and in some cases publicly called for his death.
It was not always like this in New Jersey, where until the 1990s, property tax rates remained in line with the rest of the country and balanced budgets were not an illusion that led to massive budget gaps.
What happened in Jersey is reflective of what's happening to the nation as a whole: public sector interest groups have grown more and more powerful, particularly within the Democratic party, and have begun demanding additional government programs that would bankroll their members.
Never mind the necessity or fiscal prudence of such programs, these groups said, they were government's way of achieving that most sacred of goals, "social justice." Legislators were all too happy to oblige, given their reliance on the donor rolls and volunteers that such interest groups maintained.
Thus, over the years, an arrangement was crafted where anyone could get any amount of money spent on whatever program they wished, assuming they had the kind of clout needed to catch the ear of a legislator. To be sure, many of the programs created by "social-justice" and welfare-state advocates were indeed designed with noble intentions; hopes for a fairer, more equal society. But along the way spending grew and grew, to unsustainable rates, pushing the national debt well into the trillions.
It really is not necessary to rehash who in particular is responsible for the mess we are presently in; Republicans will blame it all on Democrats and their big government ways, seemingly forgetting the gross expansion of government spending that took place during the Bush years. And Democrats, as is their eternal way, will blame George Bush, and Ronald Reagan, for everything.
What matters now is that our representatives in Congress take responsibility and start to control our national spending. That means, of course, making the tough cuts to entitlement spending that are necessary to get our fiscal house in order.
It also means reworking LBJ's Great Society programs, like Medicaid, so that they do not spend their way into insolvency. What it does not mean, however, is tax increases.
The current president has just recently released a budget proposal that, to his credit, does call for some budget cuts and entitlement reform. It does not, however, address the growing fiscal issues surrounding social security (the president maintaining that it does not contribute to the national debt and so, apparently, maintaining its solvency is not a priority). What it does do, however, is call for a unnecessary and dangerous repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts.
Ideologically, the president always made clear he opposes the tax relief measures implemented nearly a decade ago by his predecessor. What makes this recent attempt to raise taxes so egregious is that the president is not only undermining a compromise he reached with Republicans in December but also risking national economic security in the aftermath of a recession.
Rather than keep money in the hands of the businesses and individuals who earned it, so that they can reinvest it and help revitalize the economy, Barack Obama thinks government is the best person to spend it.
No doubt the beneficiary of these increased funds will be more of the same bloated, big-government programs that got us into the precarious economic situation currently facing the country—one where budget shortfalls and huge levels of debt become a staple of governance.
The president has made many claims about his new budget, arguing that his mystery mix of tax increases and budget cuts will slash four trillion dollars from the debt in just over a decade. The reality is that given the way this president operates, there is little reason to believe either he or his party will commit itself to such a program of restraint.
Yes, maybe for a year or two Congressional Democrats will resist to urge to use government funds to sponsor yet another "social justice" program, but soon enough there will be a new regulation, endangered species or oppressed minority to protect with government action. Indeed, the only thing likely to last about the Obama economic package is its unreasonable tax increases and the legacy of yet another irresponsible economic policy to come out of the Democratic Party.