More revenues? What about the spending cuts?
Fresh off a deal that raised taxes on people making at least $400,000 a year, and on everyone else through the expiration of the payroll tax cut, President Obama says - surprise! - Washington needs more revenue.
"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.