In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people pay every day for the inefficient mass transportation system. There are good ways to spend money in bad times. See: Great Depression.
And there are millions of children in NJ that need the government to not burden them with debt. NJ spends more than it takes in and needs to fix that first.
Even if a family has another kid on the way, they still need to make sure they have budgeted properly before building an expansion on the house.
A government with a rising tax base can spend more than its revenue in perpetuity. That doesn't mean it's always a good idea, but thinking about government spending the way a household manages its spending leads to incorrect conclusions.
There are millions of children in New Jersey that need their parents to be employed. Counter-cyclical spending helps to accomplish that, and if done wisely, it also acts as an investment from which those children will reap the benefits.
Discourse about government spending these days is sadly devoid of numbers that indicate the right choice one way or the other. We don't run our businesses this way.
I look at history and see how different administrations react to economic crisis. I see Harding & Coolidge vs Hoover's approach and the 1946 tax cuts as being pretty good guides. I don't see the stimulus spending by a R and a D as doing as much good.
Governments take on debt all the time. The US Govt, for example, has balanced the budget only a handful of times in its history. Building better infrastructure that makes NJ more livable is money well spent. Appealing for the future of all the little children isn't a convincing way to make an argument. Btw, the US debt is now at 100% of GDP. I'd say every American kid already has a problem.
