A Cut Is a Cut Is a Cut

Statistics developed by the Congressional Budget Office make a persuasive case against President Reagan’s plan to trim cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients over the next three years.

The most telling argument against these cuts is the finding that they would push at least 530,000 additional persons under the poverty line.

In principle, Social Security should be respected as the independent operation that it is. The contributory tax that now funds Social Security is the result of delicate negotiations designed to keep the program alive. If the wealthiest nation on Earth cannot afford these minimal protections for citizens, there is a fundamental flaw in that society.

This is not a generous program. The average benefit is $461 a month as of last January. The range in benefits is from around $100 to as high as $717 a month. Many at the bottom of the scale, and those without regular Social Security eligibility, receive the $325 a month of the supplementary security income program. Those who proposed trimming cost-of-living increases for regular Social Security recipients at least resisted the temptation to cut cost-of-living increases for the security income program.

No current figures are available to show the dependence of senior Americans on Social Security. In 1980 Social Security was the sole income for 14% of recipients, and provided 90% or more of income for 26% of recipients and more than 50% of income for 65% of recipients. Obviously it is the basic support for thousands of Americans.

The President sees no contradiction between his campaign promises not to cut Social Security and his proposal to trim the Social Security cost-of-living increases. We do not agree. When Social Security is allowed to lag behind the rate of inflation, it is cut. Just ask those trying to survive on Social Security.