On the Backs of Our Kids

In politics, it behooves the people to carefully observe what politicians do, rather than giving too much credence to what they say. Would that it were otherwise, but – far too often – the words which issue forth from political mouths bear absolutely no relationship to the actions which follow.

One always hopes that, with each newly elected batch of "representatives", matters will improve. But, alas, experience counsels us toward caution, if not downright cynicism.

Consider: our Governor, speaking to school board officials, actually said:

"We all know that our state faces serious financial challenges that must be addressed -- and addressed now. Passing our problems on to the next generation is not an option. We must find ways to do more with less, and we will have to live with cuts in many of our programs. This will require fiscal responsibility from all of us. But we are not going to balance this budget on the backs of our children."

This while the ink on the Guv’s proposal to bail out the TTF by foisting the costs onto our kids and grandkids is still wet? This while he proposes to indebt our kids to the tune of another $200 million or so on a corporate-welfare-cum-pork proposal for stem cell research centers (conveniently located in Democratic districts)?. This while we anticipate borrowing another $12 billion or so for Abbott school district construction? This while we ignore massive unfunded pension obligations and health benefit promises, the costs of which will be borne by our kids?

Whom, pray tell, does the Governor think he’s kidding?

Democrats figured out long ago that their principles – spending scads of money on preferred constituencies – and pragmatic politics collide around election time. Cutting governmental spending hits powerful Democratic constituencies right between the eyes. But, increasingly, tax increases threaten to actually annoy the complacent population enough to persuade them to get off their duffs and vote – for Republicans. (Whether the sort of Republican who tends to get elected in New Jersey would actually do anything about overspending is an entirely different matter; history offers little basis for optimism there, either.)

But one simply cannot take Corzine’s statements seriously. Over the course of the past four years, the Democrats perfected the art of spending money we don’t have, ignoring our long term obligations, and pushing the consequences off onto people – our kids – who can’t object electorally. Corzine’s very first policy decisions amount to more of the same: flagrant disregard for the long term consequences of present irresponsibility. His TTF and the stem cell proposals amount to nothing less than "balancing the budget on the backs of our children".

Corzine styles himself a "progressive", an ideology defined by its belief that Big Government makes life better by "helping" people. (Sidebar: at my Board of Adjustment meeting last night, a representative from a State economic development agency appeared on behalf of an applicant. Apparently, part of his job involves trying to figure out ways for companies to grow, despite oppressive environmental and preservation regulations. In other words, the state creates hurdles and then employs consultants to help the favored few navigate around them. Full employment for bureaucrats!) But, apparently, he lacks the courage of his convictions. An honest "progressive" would confront the electorate thus:

"In order to provide health insurance for everyone, universal preschool, luxurious public school facilities, a world class public education for every child, "free" or subsidized child care, "free" or subsidized college tuition; in order to underwrite stem cell research, to provide solid gold pensions and benefits to our hard working public employees; to fund arts programs, construct urban parks, preserve farmland, buy open space, build roads, repair bridges, underwrite rail and bus transportation, build affordable housing, support urban governments, and, in short, to do all the things government MUST do, we need to impose a massive tax increase, especially on the "wealthy". The alternative – either to do without some of these services or to massively borrow, sticking our kids with the bill – is unacceptable. So, either fork over 25% (or so) of your income to the state, or move someplace else."

In the interests of fairness, an honest conservative would reply:

"Much of what you posit as appropriate areas for governmental involvement is best left to private folks. Kids, for instance, are best served by their parents, who are capable of determining their best interests and who should, simultaneously, be expected to assume the costs thereof. To the extent that society decides that matters like education are proper subjects for public subsidy, they should be effected in the most cost effective manner possible. Put another way, in the expression "public education", the emphasis should be on "education"; the employer of the teacher and the ownership of the facility are of small moment.

"Too, all the good intentions in the world pale to insignificance if one kills off the economic goose laying the golden eggs. The Delaware makes for a poor boundary; the taxes necessary to underwrite the programs an "honest progressive" favors inevitably drive productive folks and businesses out of state. Already, we see precisely that: the only growth industry in New Jersey right now is government. The people must decide between those programs which are "essential" – homeland security, preservation of transportation infrastructure, etc. – and those which are not.

"Leaving people alone to decide their own destinies for themselves – freedom – produces the greatest good for the greatest number. A government which attempts to do everything inevitably ends up being able to afford to do nothing. We are already well on the road to bankruptcy. People who like socialism should move to Sweden (or Massachusetts)."

And the people get to choose: either pay the astronomical taxes necessary to pay for the services "progressives" think appropriate, or do without those services.

But we need to present the people with honest choices. Heretofore, our Governor’s public pronouncements are anything but.