"The problem is not that taxes are too low ...'

Every so often a committee gets together to try to reform the tax system. Such a group is looking busy in Trenton these days, working off the truism that people are spending too much of their hard-earned cash on property taxes.

And, of course, the perceived solution is to raise Somebody Else's taxes. I, the person speaking, am always paying my fair share, but Somebody Else isn't, and so a legal way has to be found to confiscate more of Somebody Else's money. The current discussion is that residential property taxes are too high, so let's find a way to raise business property taxes.

A legislative committee studying the constitutional foundation for New Jersey's property taxes used its first meeting yesterday to schedule a fight with an 800-pound gorilla.

Its next meeting, on Aug. 17, will focus on the clause in the state constitution that requires all property to be taxed on the same basis. It prevents towns from setting a preferential property tax rate for homeowners and a higher rate for businesses ...

"It's a worthwhile examination to determine if they (businesses) are paying their fair share and if not, how do you structure the tax so you don't drive them out of the state," said William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. "I applaud the committee for doing it."

Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester), the committee's co-chairman, said no decisions have been made on changing the uniformity clause, but "everything should be discussed. It's a direct constitutional issue related to taxation."

Nowhere in the article or, presumably, in the debate itself, is the thought that property taxes on everyone could be reduced by not spending as much of the money that is raised by taxing property. That would entail some of those "hard choices" that politicians are always talking about but never making. Discussions of any government reform are never about endings, only about redistribution of wealth.

Or if endings are hinted at, the hint stays on the shelf. Ronald Reagan had his Grace Commission (named after chairman Peter G.) that issued a thick book filled with things the federal government does that it shouldn't or doesn't have to do. Bill Clinton set his vice president, Al Gore, to work reinventing government. The result: Government got bigger, spending went up, taxation went up even higher. And the reports make lovely bookends.

This is the point in the essay where the writer shifts from defining the nature of the problem to suggesting a solution. But this writer's a bit baffled. I see no way out, because the problem seems to flow from the mightiest wielders of power to the meekest wieldees: Everyone seems to believe their taxes are too high, but everyone seems to believe that the answer is for Somebody Else to pay more - businesses, smokers, SUV owners, drinkers, gamblers.

Successful efforts to lower taxes are only successful in the short run, because there's no corresponding reduction in spending, and so Somebody Else's taxes have to go up. When the average household takes a pay cut, running up the credit card is one option, but at some point the cable TV has to go, or we switch to macaroni and cheese instead of going to McDonald's every couple of days. When the average government starts maxxing out the credit cards, it raises the limit and finds Somebody Else to mug.

A solution: Convince our fellow subjects that they can have a better life if they let go of whatever government teat(s) they are currently suckling. Because government is not a big fat pig, it's a big fat leech: To produce that teat's little trickle of milk, it must attach itself to their veins and draw blood. Most of that blood ends up feeding the leech's own fat, and a small percentage is reprocessed into milk. Better to find a way to produce your own milk, because you nourish yourself, not the leech.

This makes so much sense you'd think it would be common practice by now, but the more common refrain continues to be "There oughtta be a law," "Taxes should be more fair," and "Somebody Else needs to pay more." "Government needs to spend less" even morphs into "Somebody Else's teat needs to be shut off."

The solution, perhaps, begins with removing one's mouth from the teat and saying, "Thank you, I don't need this anymore," and showing by your own example that life goes on without Mama Government.