I’m getting real tired of name games with taxes. I make my living reporting on taxes.

Tax cuts that weren’t paid for? Sorry, but tax revenues come before spending. Claiming that tax cuts equal spending is conflating terms and muddying the waters. A reduction in revenues is not the same as tax spending. He’s trying to equate tax hikes with spending, but they are separate parts of the ledger. Lost revenues means one either has to reduce spending, assume higher deficits, or raise taxes to keep things in line. He, like Bush, opted for lowering the tax rates, while doing nothing to control spending (and that is separate from the spending on the wars).

Moreover, by extending those same cuts for 2 more years puts Obama and Congress in the same fiscally irresponsible boat as President Bush and the Congress in 2001 and 2003 no matter if Obama tries to justify the extension until 2012 to avoid major tax hikes on the middle class. After all, if he’s going to claim that the tax cuts were irresponsible by reducing revenues, there would be even more revenues if the Bush tax cuts were repealed in their entirety.

You go based on what the revenues are, not the other way around. That Congress and the GOP continued spending at the same levels as they did prior to the cuts puts them in the wrong on a fiscal responsibility standpoint, but the President once again shows that he’s more interested in taxing than controlling spending.