I've written several times (here and here) this year about New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine's effort to take the fiscal bull by the horn in New Jersey.  Thanks to fellow CG&G blogger-in-crime Pete Davis' alert eyes, I discovered that the New York Times yesterday ran an editorial saying much the same thing.

Back in April, I wrote about New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine's "testicular fortitude" when he announced a 2009 budget that proposed tp reduce spending below the previous year by eliminating three whole departments and 5000 jobs.  I was, and continue to be, extremely impressed with what Corzine proposed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear as if New Jersey voters are as impressed.  Since he proposed the budget, Corzine's approval ratings have dropped steadily and the primary reason appears to be the spending cuts he proposed.

The irony is that a previous New Jersey governor, Jim Florio, was bounced from office in 1993 partly because he dared to propose tax increases.  Florio then lost the Democratic nomination to Corzine in 2000 when he tried to run again.

In the mid 1990s, I served on a commission co-chaired by now New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.  I found him to be incredibly smart, courageous, an excellent leader, and remarkably down-to-earth for a multi-multi-millionaire.  I loved working with him.

So this article from yesterday's USA Today, which explained why Corzine was proposing to eliminate whole departments as he attempted to reduce spending, wasn't that surprising.

Nevertheless, it was a breath of fresh air.  Not only is Corzine proposing to reduce spending, he's doing it by one of the few ways that will actually work.  Rather than making incremental changes that will reduce the effectiveness of his government more or less across the board, he's making a decision that there are some things the government should no longer be doing at all because it can't afford it.

And note how that bold proposal has scrambled the budget politics in the state.