"Fiscal Responsibility" and Being "Revenue Neutral"

In thinking about Charlie Rangel's proposal and the upcoming Essex County Parks budget vote, I was once again struck by the attitude of politicians (particularly Democrats).

To wit: a tax cut in one place requires a balancing tax increase somewhere else, but a spending increase in one place doesn't require a balancing spending cut anywhere. The former shows "fiscal responsibility" by being "revenue neutral"; the latter is "voluntary" (Rangel's word) "support" of an "extra half a penny".

Why can't an increase in (say) the parks budget also be revenue neutral?

As individuals, we can't run our households this way because we can't set our own salaries. Our budgets are revenue neutral. If we buy a fancier car, we have to forgo that nice stereo we wanted.

We have to actually choose between all the things we'd like to do. But we let politicians avoid making those tough decisions. They get to have it both ways.

We need to start making New Jersey stick to a finite budget. Politicians should get paid to make hard decisions rather than run away from them.

This may be something that most people in the country can't imagine ever saying, but I love New Jersey. I'm not a native, either; it's just a super place to live, for a lot of reasons. I'm willing to pay for a lot of the great things New Jersey provides.

But I can't trust politicians who think that budgets should only increase. I can't even relate to people who think that cuts are always inappropriate, whether in taxes or in budgets. We need to be smarter than that.

---