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
- Two charged with selling heroin in Nashua - 0
- 'Fugitive of the week' arrested in Hooksett - 0
- Dover police arrest 3 on drug charges - 0
- Sports Briefs: No miracle finish for Vonn - 0
- Browns QB Campbell cleared to face Pats - 0
- Boychuk’s status unknown - 0
- SNHU seeks NCAA title - 0
- Wildcat gridders visit Maine in defining game for program - 0
- Manchester needs more police department argues in staffing report - 0
Science, art combine for cancer fundraiser
Dover police arrest 3 on drug charges
Reams threatens to sue county commissioners
Fourth-graders ‘experience’ Ellis Island
Copper stolen from old Salem school
Two in Keene robbed at home
McWages: They're about value
Pot debate precedes legislative hearings
Dingman: 'I try to be a better person'
John DiStaso's Granite Status: Scott Brown says 'nothing is really changed' on political plans
Judge rules to keep officers on Laurie list