Orrin Hatch: “I think the Senator is very logical. But he also has to allow the logic to take into account that Congress may, as I…”

“I think the Senator is very logical. But he also has to allow the logic to take into account that Congress may, as I said before, and should shoot for a small surplus--the incentives will be to have surpluses to avoid a last-minute unforeseen deficit. And if the estimates near the end of the year suggest that we are going to run a deficit, then it would be a simple matter for us to approve a deficit at the high end of the estimates. If we approve an estimated deficit that is slightly larger than we need, it is not like we actually spent the money. Again, I will say some may say that relying on estimates creates a loophole. But there is no other workable way to do it. I submit that the risks that might arise from those provisions in the constitutional amendment are substantially less than our current process, which is clearly not working, of simply spending and borrowing with no restraints whatsoever. I go back to my point. The distinguished Senator may be right in this regard. Perhaps Senators should not come out here and say, ``This is going to always make us balance the budget.'' I think, more accurately, it should be said that the incentives will be toward balancing the budget, because you will have supermajority votes of three-fifths in order to run deficits, or you will have to have constitutional majorities to increase taxes, which means at least 51 Senators would have to vote for it, and at least 218 Members of the House.”