The administration's proposed FY 2010 budget contains a deficit of $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion; one of the greatest threats ever to our prolonged prosperity. This inflated budget is being sold with the promise that the budget deficit, not the national debt, will be halved by the end of President Obama's term. His budget includes 10 years of deficit projections. As noted in his State of the Union Address, Obama intends to cut the federal budget deficit from $1.75 trillion in 2009 to $533 billion by the end of his term. For comparison, the 2008 deficit was $455 billion.

But what's projected for 2014? A slightly higher deficit of $570 billion. For 2015? $583 billion. By 2016, the deficit exceeds $636 billion; by 2019, it's up to about $712 billion. His budget projects that the national debt will increase nearly two-fold over 10 years, from $8.3 trillion in 2009 to $15.3 trillion in 2019.

What is the difference between a "Budget Deficit" and the "National Debt"? Suppose you spend more money this month than your income. This is called a "budget deficit." So, you must borrow. The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you don't have enough money to cover your spending (another deficit), you must borrow more, and you still have to pay interest on the loan. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don't have money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy. The Congressional Budget Office projects that interest payments on the national debt are poised to skyrocket; the government's spending on net interest will triple between 2010 and 2020, from $207 billion to $723 billion annually.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's appropriations. We pay interest on that huge debt. And now the Treasury is having trouble finding lenders! We face a true "China Syndrome."

The deficit is increasing in part because the retiring baby boomers are on Social Security. Social Security spending will rise fairly dramatically over the next 10 years. There is no surprise here; the Republican administration was aware of this years ago, but elected to run deficits rather than balanced budgets. It is the responsibility of our elected officials to balance the receipt of our tax dollars against the programs these officials put in place for the overall benefit of society. Our state has enacted a law which requires our governor and representatives to balance our state budget. This is why we have a healthier economy than California, Arizona and others.

We are being sold this perilous budget with the carrot that the deficit will be halved by the end of Obama's term. There are only two ways Congress could do this: by cutting programs (i.e., Social security and Medicare) and by raising taxes. What history supports Congress's willingness to cut other programs? The obvious answer leaves a significant raising of taxes as the only believable way for the proposed deficit to be halved. Is this what we want?

Halving the deficit is dependent on economic forces that are unpredictable, but never more so than in our current economic malaise. Our tepid growth is not likely to materially change over the remaining course of Obama's term. The result is that previous levels of tax receipts cannot be reached. Halving the deficit also depends upon financial costs. Is Obama certain that the emerging, bristling Chinese will continue to purchase our Treasury bills? Should they not, then their interest rates will increase, perhaps dramatically.

The debate over restricting and breaking up our largest banks is little more than a purposeful distraction from the more important issues of Congressional debacles which have created our current level of non-sustainable programs. It was Congress that mandated the sub-prime lending which precipitated our real estate collapse.

The downside of reducing our national budget is decreased relief for those in need . Although it is politically expedient to do as much as possible for those in need, such must be balanced with the overall good of our nation going forward. In tough times we must make tough decisions.

We should be gravely concerned; enough to contact our congressional representatives to express our opposition to the proposed budget.

Ken Kirk is a former professor of finance at Kennesaw State University.