I am writing in response to a number of recent letters in the Tribune that have incorrectly portrayed my record and wrongly questioned my commitment to reducing the federal deficit. To be clear, I am and always will be a deficit hawk.

I am as appalled as anyone by the explosion in the deficit. But the fact is we have no choice but to increase the deficit in the short term to respond to the nation's economic downturn. With private capital wiped out or on the sidelines, the federal government is currently the only entity capable of jump-starting economic activity. I reject the "Hoover economics" theory that the markets will always correct themselves. That kind of thinking by President Hoover led to a dramatic worsening of the Great Depression and has long since been discredited.

As for reconciliation, what I have said, both publicly and privately, is that I oppose using the fast-track budget process for anything other than its intended purpose, which is to reduce deficits. That is why every year my budgets include a rule allowing reconciliation to be used for deficit reduction only. The reconciliation instruction for health reform and education included in this year's budget requires such deficit reduction.

The chief problem with reconciliation is that it is poorly-suited for considering major policy reforms. Experts on the subject advise it could turn such legislation into "Swiss cheese," with key provisions stripped out.

In the end, I believe reconciliation will not be used for health reform. Congress deliberately delayed activation of the reconciliation provision until after Oct. 15, to give time for lawmakers to enact health reform through the regular order. I am working hard on that effort and remain committed to enacting health reform with broad bipartisan support.