Rep. Peter Roskam is concerned about the future, although he cares little about saving the environment or providing health care access to children or veterans. He's more interested in erasing the national debt by any means necessary. Yesterday, the suburban Congressman penned an op-ed in the Washington Times, lambasting the Obama administration for what he deems its egregious spending:

The Troubled Asset Relief Program bill; various bailouts to financial institutions, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and passage of the $792 billion "stimulus" bill designed to improve the economy will lead to a federal deficit for the current fiscal year of nearly $1.8 trillion - more than triple the previous record.

Think that math is daunting? The long-term math is much worse, as the federal government's impending entitlement obligations will far outstrip the losses of any subprime lender. Medicare faces 75-year obligations of $36 trillion, according to the trustees' latest report. Add in Social Security, and the total rises to $56 trillion. That amounts to $746 billion - more than the size of the original TARP bill - per year, every year, for three generations.

The first thing to note: Roskam conveniently leaves out mention of President Obama's predecessor when discussing deficits.

In 2001, budget experts projected a $710 billion surplus for 2009. When President Bush left office, the nation was running a $546 billion deficit. That's a $1.3 trillion deterioration in the nation’s finances, 42 percent of which can be directly tied to the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts (which Roskam wants to make permanent) and 40 percent to defense and security increases. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, two wars, and a 77 percent defense budget hike really add up.

Second, averaging out long-term obligations is just silly. Take Roskam's warning about Social Security. While the Congressional Budget Office's worst case projections show a $20 trillion rise in the program's obligations over 75 years -- which equates to $267 billion a year -- the same officials also project the 75-year shortfall to be roughly one-third of one percent of projected gross domestic product. As Robert Kuttner explains, when wage growth begins to rise again, Social Security will likely enjoy a surplus. "Even without a raise for working America," he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed last month, "Social Security needs only minor adjustments."

Medicare is a different animal, yet Roskam still misses the key point. This program faces massive deficits because of the rising cost per beneficiary, not the number of patients the program treats. And those costs are increasing because Medicare pays for health services on the private market. In other words, Medicare is suffering from a problem afflicting the health care system as a whole. Spending more now to create comprehensive universal health insurance -- making the entire system more efficient and less prone to inflation -- is the surest way to control costs in the long run. Therefore, Roskam's analogy -- "After all, who would try to lose weight by eating more?" -- doesn't make sense.

We shouldn't be surprised with Roskam's pushback. After all, the incentives for House Republicans to distance themselves from new government expenditures are high. But blocking progressive reforms because of fear of long-term deficits is no antidote to our current economic crisis.