Fiscal Conservatives Harder To Label Now
By Richard Powelson
Knoxville News-Sentinel
March 18, 2003

It used to be easy to identify the fiscal conservatives in the Tennessee congressional delegation, but roles have blurred, and the label may have to be retired for years.

Republicans for decades routinely called for a responsible federal budget that annually kept spending at or below the level of tax revenues. They even tried to amend the Constitution to require it.

For example, U.S. Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. of Knoxville, a Republican, wrote in his August 1995 newsletter: "Times ... could be better for everyone, and we could have unparalleled prosperity if we did four very simple things ... (including) balance our federal budget AND start paying off the national debt."

But lately Duncan and other Republicans have been voting for record-high defense spending, repeated mammoth reductions in tax revenues and allowing ever increasing annual budget deficits and higher national debt.

In this topsy-turvy political world today, it now is usually some Democrat who is yelling about high budget deficits and mounting national debt. Republicans are saying deficits don't really matter now or for the next few years as they experiment with steps that may or may not directly boost the economy quickly but definitely will cut revenues and increase federal borrowing and debt financing costs.

Can U.S. Rep. John Tanner, a Union City Democrat, now call himself a fiscal conservative?

He - not Duncan - last week wrote to President Bush asking him to work with conservative and moderate Democrats to address the nation's long-term fiscal problems before raising the national debt ceiling by $924 billion. But Bush, busy trying to get Congress to reduce more tax revenues despite the rising budget deficits, probably won't find time to read Tanner's letter.

Congress, for reasons that defy logic, sets a limit on how much total debt the country can have. The cap is irrelevant because Congress sets spending levels for all federal departments and agencies. If members want to reduce the national debt, they just need to approve lower budgets and quit reducing tax revenues.

Having to vote every year or so to increase the overall debt cap just calls repeated attention to how Congress keeps failing to operate within available financial resources.

Bush, who called the Clinton-Gore administration big spenders despite their ability to preside over revenue surpluses their last three years in office, released budget plans early this year which project eye-popping, growing national debt through at least 2008. No revenue surpluses are expected.

Bush's budget staff says the national debt of $6.4 trillion and rocketing higher is expected to reach $7.3 trillion by next year, when Bush likely runs for re-election, and rise every year to about $9.3 trillion by 2008.

Should U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis, a Pall Mall Democrat, be called a fiscal conservative? He also worries about the rising national debt and notes its annual financing costs already are consuming 18 cents of every tax dollar. As the debt rises, so do the financing costs.

"I object to tax cuts that are financed with borrowed money," Davis said, "and will increase taxes on our children and grandchildren."

Should U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, a Nashville Democrat, be labeled a fiscal conservative? He, too, opposed the latest Bush tax revenue reduction.

"Literally trillions of dollars will be added to the national debt under their plan," Cooper said. "This is too great a burden to put on the next generation," which already faces a huge federal financial burden from growing numbers of seniors aetting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Until enough true fiscal conservatives move toward responsible budgets, the national debt burden will become much more hazardous to taxpayers for many, many years.