Please, don’t blame New Jersey’s high taxes on Gov. Phil Murphy. Before he swore his oath, we were already ranked #5 in the nation.

The problem is that he doesn’t seem to mind. He’s hinting that he’ll propose more tax hikes in his budget address on Tuesday. And he’s treating a bipartisan plan to cut spending, pushed by Senate President Steve Sweeney, as though it’s something he stepped on during a morning jog in the park.

“He doesn’t want to talk to me about it,” says Sweeney, D-Gloucester. “But if he relies on taxes and doesn’t fix the spending, you can bet there’s going to be one hell of a fight.”

The Assembly Speaker, Craig Coughlin, D-Middlesex, is banging the same war drums. “I’m going to be insistent on no more broad-based new taxes,” he says.

So, as the game begin, let’s take a closer look at the spending cuts that Sweeney has proposed, which affect the pension and health benefits of public workers.

On pensions, Sweeney would not touch anyone with five years of experience or more. For new employees, and those with only a few years, the changes would be modest. Their first $40,000 in income would be treated as it is now, with the same guaranteed benefits. But earnings above that amount would not increase their benefits.

Instead, the state would make a separate contribution to a retirement fund similar to a 401k. That’s called a “hybrid” system, and several states have already made the move, including some controlled by Democrats, like Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

What is so tough about that change? Given the fiscal crisis, and given the brick wall of opposition Murphy faces in the Legislature, why on earth would he refuse to embrace that modest change?

“There was no big fight over this in Pennsylvania,” Sweeney says. “It’s just not that hard.”

The last pension reform, signed in 2011, was much tougher. It required current employees to contribute much more to their pensions. And it froze payments to retirees, making no allowance for inflation. Those folks have lost nearly 15 percent of their pension income, so far.

That round was draconian. This one isn’t. Most taxpayers would bleed to get the same pension deal public workers would have -- even after these changes are made.

Turn to health care and things get a bit more complicated. Sweeney says he wants to downgrade public workers from “platinum” coverage to “gold” coverage, as measured under Obamacare. Sounds reasonable, but public worker unions say there are smarter ways to achieve savings, with reforms that will save money for both taxpayers and workers.

That might sound like happy talk, but it isn’t. In the last few years unions have agreed through negotiations to make major changes in the management of pharmaceutical benefits that have saved roughly $1.5 billion over three years, split between taxpayers and workers. From the union point of view, it is nuts to pass laws that could freeze existing arrangements and block future savings.

“We are working with the governor in a really serious way on health care,” says Hetty Rosenstein, of the Communication Workers of America. “Where we can save everyone big bucks is when you can knock down the prices, like we did with prescription drugs.”

Those negotiations continue, and hold promise of more savings, at least with the CWA. The New Jersey Education Association, which is by far larger, has made only modest concessions.

For most of us, it doesn’t matter much whether health savings come through negotiations, or changes in the law. The point is to cut the costs. Pension changes, by contrast, must be made by law.

Will Murphy deliver the needed spending cuts? If he has a plan, he’s done a great job keeping it secret.

He recently hinted that he will propose an increase in the millionaire’s tax, a popular move among voters. The problem is that would not raise nearly enough money to deal with the crisis. And both Sweeney and Coughlin vow that he won’t get even that unless he embraces deep spending cuts first.

Murphy is likely to make much of the need to scale back tax breaks for corporations, and he’s certainly right about that. But the existing breaks are contractual and can’t be rescinded, so that’s no answer to the current crisis either.

The governor once said that he hopes to awaken New Jersey’s “progressive soul.” He must have missed the backlash against Gov. Jim Florio’s tax hikes, and the immense popularity of Gov. Chris Christie’s tax cap, and his cuts to benefits for public workers.

Yes, we are a progressive state when it comes to gay marriage, abortion rights, and marijuana. But on taxes, we are a grouchy state. Internal polling by Democratic leaders has them scared that they could lose Assembly seats this year if they’re not careful about that, especially in the wake of federal changes that capped deductions for state and local taxes.

They won’t lose their giant majority, but “having fewer votes makes it harder to get things done,” Sweeney says.

Will Murphy agree to cut benefits for public workers? I doubt it. So far, he’s chosen to side with public workers every time. My guess is we are headed for another showdown, one that the rookie governor will lose, again.

Republicans stand ready to help. I asked Assemblyman Jon Bramnick, the Republican leader, if his team would help Sweeney and Coughlin in a showdown by helping them override a Murphy budget that relies on tax increases over spending cuts.

“Absolutely,” says Bramnick, R-Union. “This governor has not built any relationships in the Legislature. This will be the easiest governor to override in the history of New Jersey. He’s got a really serious problem.”

He didn’t create the problem, no. But if he doesn’t take bold steps to fix it, he’ll soon own it.

More: Tom Moran columns

Tom Moran may be reached at tmoran@starledger.com or call (973) 836-4909. Follow him on Twitter @tomamoran. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.