Orrin Hatch: “That is quite a bit different from what I am saying. We did not include Social Security in the budget in…”

“That is quite a bit different from what I am saying. We did not include Social Security in the budget in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings solely so as to not give the President the right to sequester Social Security funds. But this exclusion was not from the budget itself. But we should not lock the exemption into the Constitution. We can always change statutes. It is much harder to amend the Constitution. We should not lock into the Constitution the largest item in the Federal budget, which is outside the purview of the constitutional amendment. If you start doing that, that is risky. You do not know how that will affect senior citizens. It is likely to hurt the senior citizens, and it is better to keep things on budget. I suspect that there is no question in anybody's mind that Social Security is more than capable of fending for itself and of getting another 98-to-2 vote in the Senate and an equivalent vote in the House that you cannot tamper with it. Frankly, I am one of those that would make sure to vote that you do not tamper with Social Security, to lock the exemption in the Constitution forever. Such a budgetary practice, is risky. That could have a terribly bad effect on senior citizens. I think senior citizens are starting to wake up to that. They know this issue has been used blatantly and politically and demogogically for years now. I think they are getting tired of it.”