NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- The latest debt deal out of Washington, D.C. would raise the statutory debt limit (debt ceiling) by as much as $2.4 trillion ( the largest increase ever), while reducing federal deficits by $2.1 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Off the bat, this seems like a bum deal -- a plain sight failure to deliver on political promises from both sides of the aisle.

It last took the U.S. government less than two years to spend $2.4 trillion in money we do not have. But if you expand the timeline to the first fiscal year -- 1789 -- it took the U.S. 198 years -- to 1987 -- to deficit-spend its way to a $2.4 trillion debt.

Call it "escalation of commitment."

The sad truth is that today's Democrats and Republicans are fiscally irresponsible; and this debt deal hardly accomplishes anything.

As Peter Schiff wrote last week, "The plans on the table suggest cutting a couple trillion in cumulative spending over the next decade. In other words, they propose cuts that only reduce deficits by about 10% to 20%; they do nothing to reduce actual debt levels. So if these talks are successful, then instead of a $1.5 trillion deficit each year, perhaps we only suffer a $1.2 trillion deficit. Meanwhile, the debt continues growing. This is 'success' in Washington."

If this budget passes Congress today or tomorrow, we've only succeeded in keeping the status quo: Shirking an hour of responsibility and postponing an inevitable day of reckoning.

As Congressman Ron Paul memorably stated, "Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers."

To the 112th Congress, consider yourselves exposed.

-- Written by John DeFeo in New York City

If you liked this article you might like

Have a 401(k)? Ask HR About These Funds

Google Asks 'Which Result Do You Prefer?'

How to Invest - Basic Investing Strategies

Paul Ryan's Tax Plan Endangers Capitalism

Want to See Gary Johnson and Jill Stein Debate? Here's Why You Won't