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: 0
- Police obtain warrants for suspect wanted in Dover, Manchester bank robberies - 0
- Abby Dion, 9, records a 10 in gymnastics meet - 0
- St. A skaters fall to Norwich - 0
- Monarchs lose in OT; win streak stops at 6 - 0
- Police searching for person stealing from cars in Manchester - 0
- College Football: Maine seniors want the coveted musket - 0
- College Hockey: Ice-making problem postpones UNH-PC - 0
- Pinkerton backfield a combination of power and speed - 0
- John Habib's City Sports: State Legion rejects Post 79’s request for senior team - 0
Jury acquits Mont Vernon driver, who was checking text, in death of former Amherst fire chief
Driver acquitted in Amherst ex-chief’s death
A kinder, gentler House Speaker?
College Football: Wildcats are CAA champs
College Hockey: Providence blanks UNH