Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., must form a united front in the effort to limit federal spending and bring budget deficits under control.

President Obama and House Republicans last week drew sharp lines of distinction between their respective positions on the budget. About the only positive thing that can be said about them is that there is plenty of room for compromise.

Unfortunately, neither side is indicating much flexibility in their budget postures. President Obama, obviously trying out themes for next year's campaign, accused the GOP of laying the budget groundwork for turning the U.S. into a Third World country by advocating heartless budget cuts. Meanwhile, Republicans are threatening to oppose increasing the current national debt limit unless they get some concessions on spending, a move that would cause the U.S. to default on its debt and have a calamitous effect on the country and the economy.

Heated debates between Congress and the president are nothing new to Washington, D.C. But what is new in this debate is the undeniable seriousness of the problem posed by excessive federal spending.

The U.S. is quickly approaching a national debt in excess of $14 trillion dollars, and it is running unthinkable annual budget deficits well in excess of $1 trillion a year. Previous deficits pale in comparison to what the country now faces, and they represent a new red menace to our national security the menace of rid ink.

Continuing to run deficits at current levels is unaffordable. When the economy bounces back from what has been a devastating recession, part of the problem will be addressed with increased revenue to the federal government.

But addressing only part of the problem is insufficient. The U.S. has to get spending under control.

President Obama last year appointed a special commission to review the problem and make recommendations and the committee responded with a series of recommendations that included $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Obama's commission also proposed a tax reform package that would flatten tax rates while at the same time eliminating many tax deductions.

Unfortunately, Obama ignored the commission's recommendations and followed it with a budget speech that seemed to ignore the problem altogether.

Last week, he joined the debate, proposing specific tax increases with non-specific spending cuts while lambasting House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's more dramatic and specific proposals to reduce spending by $6 trillion over 10 years and ultimately balance the budget.

It's understandable and not surprising Obama would defend traditional social welfare programs from budget cuts. But what seems to be lost in the translation is that the U.S. is funding much of this spending with borrowed money.

Obama's position is that the U.S. cannot spend less when it ought to be that we cannot continue to spend borrowed money.

Like Illinois, the federal government is broke. Unlike Illinois, the federal government can borrow and borrow and borrow and not worry about balancing its budget. But while it can and it has done that for a long time, the federal government cannot do it forever.

The day of reckoning is drawing near. So while it's fine for Democrats and Republicans to posture and preen as part of their budget negotiations, it will be a disaster if they forget that the country's future depends on gaining control of out-of-control spending that threatens the country's future.