Column for Feb. 24, 2011

Well, Governor Bev Perdue finally did it. She submitted her budget and proposed to cut spending and jobs. All it took was a little discipline and courage. It isn't really all that hard. We had to do the same thing in our household. My wife has been out of work for two years now and we are living almost entirely on my salary. Some extra spending had to go. Essential items get paid for first, then other bills. If there is anything left over, then we contemplate our charitable giving budget, our dining budget, gift giving, and the like. The state of North Carolina should be no different in its approach.

The governor and I do not agree on all of the areas in which to cut spending. Just recently, I took the governor's budget cutting challenge that was on a state web site. I not only was able to balance the budget by cutting $2,633,800,000 in spending, I was also able to create a surplus of $1,233,800,000 according to the computer model. According to the model, I cut 27,027 jobs from the state's payroll.

Of course I believe that the computer model is purposely biased. There were options for increasing class size in K-12 schools by one, two, or three students. The same option was available for secondary education. I Seriously doubt that adding another few students per class is going to be detrimental to the education system and I seriously doubt the accuracy of the model. Somehow I have a hard time believing that by increasing class size by an average of 3 students per classroom, I would be cutting 18,027 jobs.

I understand the fears that many families have when being faced with job cuts. I was a state employee myself for several years. I have friends and family who work for state government. If layoffs come, who knows if they would be affected? Under the governor's plan, many unfilled job slots will be eliminated. 3,000 jobs will be cut from the state payroll that are presently filled by employees. The state is bloated with employees in some areas and lean in others. I know several state employees that are swamped with work while I have personally witnessed other positions that are overkill and unnecessary.

We have to determine what services are vital and what ones are not. That is what the governor promises to do in this budget, eliminating funding for 68 of what Perdue labeled as "nonessential programs". If they are "nonessential", then why were we paying for them to begin with?

Though I will give Beverly Perdue kudos for looking to cut the budget, I am still not as optimistic as many that we will actually end up with the sort of spending level we truly should have. I will say that at least our state executive seems to be more up front and honest about the problems of government spending that our national executive.

President Barack Hussein Obama has threatened to veto deep spending cuts proposed by Congress. Though the President was just on television giving lip service to responsible spending, he is threatening against responsible spending. What sort of double standard is that? You can not have it both ways. Either you support budget cuts or you don't. You can not be directly responsible for the most reckless spending that we have seen in the history of America, call for responsible spending, then take action against responsible spending. That is just political double-speak and twaddle. When the Department of Health and Human Services budget alone is bigger than the entire federal budget under Lyndon Johnson, something is seriously wrong.

We have far too many people dependent upon government for their means of supply. Whether that supply be the result of employment or social welfare programs, we can not maintain the previous levels of spending. If I borrowed 45% of everything I spent in my household on a consistent basis, I would rapidly be filing bankruptcy. The difference is that the government can print more money and issue more bonds and I can not.

If we had more people in elected office who cared more about the population in general rather than their own level of power and those who are most likely to help them attain it, we would have the very thing that James Madison wrote about our republic. Speaking of a government that applies both to the elected and the general population, he wrote,

"It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny."

(Federalist Papers # 57). We have reached that degeneration already.