Home » Opinion » Editorials
More revenues? What about the spending cuts?
"There is no doubt we need additional revenue, coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down our deficit," he said during a CBS News interview aired right before the Super Bowl.
That raises a few questions.
1. If he really wants to reduce the deficit, why did he produce four straight budgets with deficits of more than $1 trillion?
2. Does anyone really believe that his new budget (which was due on Monday, by the way) will contain no new spending and instead devote all new revenues to deficit reduction?
3. If revenues are to be "coupled with smart spending reductions," then shouldn't both come at the same time? Why is it always revenues first, spending reductions later?
Republicans in the U.S. House need to insist that the President present real spending reductions before or in conjunction with his plan to raise revenue. Then they should insist that the spending cuts be passed and signed into law before any vote on revenue is taken. Let's not fall again for the "I'll cut spending after you raise taxes" trick.
READER COMMENTS: 6
- UPDATE: Portsmouth woman, 60, identified after her body is found in creek - 1
- N.Y. man charged with reckless conduct after accidental shooting in Nashua - 1
- Cases against Keene 'Robin Hooders' dismissed by judge - 4
- Task force arrests man in Nottingham for Candia burglary - 1
- Police: Salem man used car keys to stab officer in hand - 0
- Manchester muffler shop burglarized - 0
- Boy, 12, struck in Newton remains hospitalized - 0
- State revenue under projections for November - 1
- Armed man arrested after Manchester convenience store robbery - 0
John DiStaso's Granite Status: Bob Smith ready to hire campaign manager for his 2014 US Senate run
Push to block casino in NH ramping up