Deficit vs. debt confusion

 Dear Editor:

In the Jan. 6 edition of the Red Oak Express, Cherie Miner commented about the mistaken belief by a majority of the American public that “the budget deficit has grown under Obama.” She contends it has not. I believe that Ms. Miner is making the same mistake that most of the public, and the media as well, are making—confusing the terms “deficit” and “debt”.   

The deficit is the difference between the amount of revenue an entity (or individual, or family) brings in and the amount it spends in the same year, when the outgoing money is more than the incoming. She may be correct in her assertion about Obama, depending on the year and whether she is comparing the yearly deficits during his tenure, or his deficits to the previous administration or administrations (and which years); but it was difficult to tell in her article. 

Debt is by far the most serious number, both because it is larger and beacause interest is computed on it. In that sense the debt has ballooned under both George Bush (from about $5 trillion when he took office to over $11 trillion when he departed) and Barak Obama ($11 trillion to almost $18 trillion, and counting). The debt is the burden we are leaving our children and succeeding generations; and let’s be honest: it is our own unwillingness to give up the benefits of federal spending that is ultimately responsible for this looming crisis. Democrats, Republicans, and independents all share the blame.

Steve Turman

Red Oak