Dear Editor To Jim Petric's (sic)questions: “why does our mounting monster debt of some $17 trillion and unfunded promised entitlements of $60 trillion NOT sincerely, inarguably scare the shit out of you? “I am not a Tea Partier, nor a Republican--hell, I wouldn't belong to a political party that would have me--but a former old school Kennedy Democrat who simply cannot fathom why folks on both sides of the aisle aren't begging and clamoring for and demanding government spending within our means.” (John Petric' column Oct. 31) Jim and any duckies who are interested. What you seem to be asking for is a quick and easy to comprehend answer, which is a bit difficult because much of the related concepts have been distorted or substituted with falsified simplicities. What is going on is mostly a political struggle over the fiscal capacities of the Federal government. A large portion of the scramble and mumbling cannot be simply based upon "common sense." Some economic and fiscal literacy is necessary to understand where, when and by whom the fraud of the faux "debate" is being perpetrated. A lot of people are as a result of keeping the secrets of the Wall Street temples secret or at least masked by a lot appeal to un-true truisms and the deliberate obfuscation of how reserve accounting actually works for banks and for the government at different levels. Think cocaine, snake oil elixirs and stage magic and you will be on the right track. Here is a condensed answer: Jim, first off what is often assumed to be a "national debt" is actually not a debt, but technically a national deficit. Within fiscal related economics "debt" is something that an ordinary household or individual takes on with a promise to pay that debt. A deficit at the federal level is the difference between currency units that have been spent into the economy in different ways by the Federal government. Part of the problem with understanding the current fiscal situation is that the TINA-"free market" ideologues intentionally confuse the concepts in order to confuse and panic people in going along with their corporate privatization of governance. There is a massive difference between the federal government as the issuer of the national sovereign, fiat currency, and a household which needs to earn or otherwise acquire the currency credits to pay off various debts. Taxes collected by the Federal government are NOT the basis upon which the Federal government funds fiscal priorities, at all. Most progressives have adopted the language of free market economics, as if there is no actual and valid alternative to the political dramatists and "free market" ideologues. I've seen it many, many times, a self professed progressive will moan about the problems of inequality, and then they don't have a clue about how to remedy the resulting problems other than taxing the rich. Taxation is primarily a way of adjusting the distribution of wealth, and unfortunately it has been used to tax the middle class primarily and let the piles of gold bars and other wealth accumulate for those already wealthy. Many progressive are econo-phobic actually and share this with a large percentage of the rest of the population. However, when the calls for reducing inequality are announced, they will tend to shuffle their feet and call for taxation of the rich, and other than that they remain clueless. There is another way and that is to put people to work and provide a basic or better income as was done with the WPA by FDR and how the soldiers were paid during WWII. As long as we keep our sovereign fiat currency we will always pay off any actual Federal debt, such as trade deficits. China for instance has an account at the US Federal Reserve where it is earning interest of their trade deficit with the US. I will cut this off, mostly because the complete answer to your questions will involve covering a lot more territory. The short story is that the verbiage coming from the TINA seats is 99 percent political and not fiscal,AT ALL. The 17 trillion you mention, depending on to which part you are referring, is close to meaningless, simply because it is not like a household debt, because again we still have a sovereign fiat currency, which Spain, Greece, Italy, et al no longer have because they gave up their sovereign currency to join the European Monetary Union. Please, ask more questions and I will strive to respond until you are satisfied. for now, Tadit Anderson Columbus