Gramm-Rudman Law Will Be a Sledgehammer

Michael Kinsley’s article (Editorial Pages, Dec. 24) on cutting the federal budget seriously underestimates the damage that Gramm-Rudman will do to programs that are vital to many Americans. Saying that it is easy to balance the budget, he dismisses the problems with a wave of his hand: They are just “political.”

But is it just political when we stand against cutting cancer research? When we struggle for more funding for polio immunizations and for AIDS research? When we try to preserve a decent Medicare program for the elderly and disabled or a feeding and prenatal care program for poor women and children?

I think not. In truth, the reason we have trouble cutting domestic programs is because we have already spent four years cutting them. Former Budget Director David Stockman himself admitted there was little left to cut. Most of the spending that is left is for programs that Americans want and need.

I should quickly add that Kinsley is right when he says that the Reagan Administration and the Congress have lacked the will to attack tax loopholes and defense spending with the same vigor. He is right that we should turn our attentions here, too. But it will not be easy when the White House wields veto threats against all tax bills, even cigarette taxes, and spends all its political capital on raising defense spending.

As a solution to this dilemma, Gramm-Rudman will prove a sledgehammer, pounding on vaccinations and cruise missiles alike. It will aggravate and lengthen any recession, it will result in idiotic cuts, and it will cause a severe loss of credibility for our government.

I wish that the easy solutions were as plausible as Kinsley has presented them. But they are not, and he should know it. Instead he has perpetuated the same approach that Stockman carried on for four years: It is easy to cut programs if you don’t understand them.

Take Kinsley’s simplistic approach to Medicare.

He begins by claiming that the elderly are well off, that they can absorb more of their medical costs. I wonder if he has asked any of the elderly citizens in my congressional district. It has the second highest median age in the nation. I think he would find many of them struggling to make it on their Social Security checks.

Sixty percent of the elderly below poverty have to rely totally on Medicare; they have no Medicaid coverage. And nearly one-third of the elderly nationwide live within 50% of the poverty level. Almost any sudden expense can make them poor. A medical crisis can make them poor for the rest of their lives.

I think Kinsley would also find it astonishing how little Medicare pays for the care of these people. Extended nursing home care, prescription drugs, eyeglasses, hearing aids--none of these is covered. And from Jan. 1 on, the first day of each hospital stay is costing them $492. Each year they pay almost $200 for premiums. Every doctor bill has a co-payment, and many doctors charge much more than Medicare’s maximum.

The sad facts are that Medicare pays less than half or the medical expenses of the elderly, and that the elderly now spend more of their income on health than they did in 1965, before Medicare was enacted. Trying to defend this program from further cuts is not just “political.”

HENRY A. WAXMAN

Member of Congress

24th District

Los Angeles