I understand. What Senator Simon argued last year as the leading proponent of this amendment was that he felt there would be a greater propensity to increase taxes to solve these problems. I have to say that I do not believe that is so, but that is what he felt. I do not think that is so. I think it would be very difficult to get constitutional majorities to increase taxes except where they are clearly needed to be increased, and that is why we put in a constitutional majority. Now, it is no secret, and my friend knows this, that there are those on my side who do not think that is adequate.
Orrin Hatch: “I understand. What Senator Simon argued last year as the leading proponent of this amendment was that he felt there…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing tax increases and constitutional majorities during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Orrin Hatch
Our trade policy should strengthen our relationships with our allies while targeting China's most harmful trade practices.
Having a confirmed Commissioner and sustained leadership will benefit the Social Security Administration.
on May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court in Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 2018, struck down the Federal prohibition of State-authorized sports wagering schemes. I was one of four original authors of that prohibition, the Professional and…
I know of no further debate on the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? Hearing none, the bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass? The bill (H.R. 1551), as amended, was passed.





