RALEIGH – The North Carolina General Assembly has convened, elected its leaders, and begun organizing into committees and subcommittees to tackle the public’s business for the 2007-08 session.

Unfortunately, for all too many lawmakers, the definition of the “the public’s business” – or res publica in Latin, yielding our term republic – is so broad that it encompasses what we eat or drink, where we live, what we teach our children, and how we transact business with our employers, customers, and co-workers. Also unfortunate is that for all too many lawmakers, to “tackle the public’s business” means to make government larger and taxes higher.

A reality check is in order here, particularly as spending lobbies begin to line up at the Legislative Building pleading poverty and seeking largesse. North Carolina’s state government is not starved. It does not lack for sufficient funds to perform legitimate functions. Problems with our schools, roads, and other public services are the result of poor political decisions, not poor public coffers.

Consider these facts:

• The state budget is 311 percent bigger than it was 20 years ago, 91 percent bigger than it was 10 years ago, and 41 percent bigger than five years ago.

• Yes, North Carolina has added lots of people over this time, and prices have risen, but even after adjusting for population and inflation, the state’s General Fund was $1,979 per capita last year, compared with $1,322 in 1986, $1,666 in 1996, and $1,952 in 2001. Some are pointing at the plateau in adjusted spending since 2001 as evidence of the need for bigger state budgets, pretending that the previous 15 years of massive increases didn’t happen. That lapse of memory is convenient for the spending lobbies. It’s inconvenient for the taxpayers.

• State and local governments are consuming a higher share of North Carolinians’ income than they did 10 or 20 years ago. It wouldn’t be fair to call it a staggering increase – a 13 percent increase in the average tax burden since 1986 – but it still reduces our freedom to spend our own money on our own priorities. Many of our neighboring states have lower tax burdens, sometimes as much as 10 percent to 15 percent lower, and yet have similar or even superior rates of population and economic growth.

• Education spending has grown faster than overall spending during the period. In 2005, North Carolina public schools spent an average of $7,215 per pupil. It’s true that the spending trend has been essentially level since 2001, but it’s important to remember that real per-pupil spending rose by 62 percent from 1986 to 2001.

• In other words, public education has a lot more resources to work today than in the past. Are we getting our money’s worth? Math scores on reputable national tests have, indeed, shown marked improvement. But our reading scores and high-school graduation rates haven’t.

• With regard to transportation, North Carolina’s highways ranked 8th in the nation in quality and cost-effectiveness 20 years ago. Now, we’re 27th. During this period, lawmakers plowed billions of additional dollars into roads and other transportation infrastructure, financed by higher taxes on motorists. Again, did taxpayers get a proper bang for our buck? The evidence strongly suggests that we did not – that large amounts of these dollars were misspent on scarcely used highways and other low-priority projects.

• The largest public-assistance program controlled by North Carolina politicians is our Medicaid program. It’s one of the most expensive Medicaid programs in our region, so the argument that we need a massive influx of new dollars is hard to square with the fact that other states seem to fulfill their basic responsibilities in this area at a significantly lower cost.

When public officials cite a challenging problem and propose a new spending program to “solve” it, it’s wise to apply a healthy dose of skepticism. North Carolina has spent the better part of the past two decades throwing money at problems. It’s time to try a different approach. Rank current state programs according to priority and effectiveness. Redirect the current stream of revenue so that higher-priority programs get more money and lower-priority programs get less or none.

That means saying no to many of those spending lobbies lining up on Jones Street. Lawmakers, that’s your job.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.