Attacks Him on Aid to Aged, Disabled : Wilson Turns Tables on McCarthy

Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson, in the first strong counterattack of his reelection campaign, accused Democratic Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy Friday of trying to hide his vote for a 1982 state budget that reduced Social Security benefits for the aged, blind and disabled.

Wilson hopes his attack will turn the tables on McCarthy, who is seeking to unseat Wilson in the U.S. Senate race.

For months, McCarthy has been attacking Wilson for casting a U.S. Senate vote in 1985 that gave less than a full inflationary increase to Social Security recipients. That vote was widely publicized because Wilson was wheeled into the Senate chamber from a hospital bed, where he was recovering from appendix surgery.

But on Friday, the Wilson campaign distributed copies of vote tallies on the 1982-83 state budget showing that then-Assemblyman McCarthy did precisely the same thing he now is criticizing Wilson for doing. And the Wilson campaign distributed copies of a newspaper account of a speech McCarthy gave indicating that he opposed the Social Security benefits cut, but not mentioning that he voted for it by approving the budget.

The 1982-83 budget was especially austere because of a downturn in state revenues brought on by a recession. Spending was held down in most areas, but particularly hard hit were health and welfare programs.

With the help of McCarthy, the budget received the bare two-thirds majority, or 54 votes, that was needed for passage.

Matching Dollars

The cut Wilson is criticizing McCarthy for involves a program in which the state provides matching dollars to supplement monthly living allowances for aged, blind and disabled persons receiving Social Security benefits. Persons receiving benefits under the program, called SSI/SSP, that year received increases of 2.8%, well below the 8% level, based on the rate of inflation, that Congress would have matched.

Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim), a Wilson supporter, released the budget vote and other documents Friday. “The issue is one of credibility. Are we to believe (McCarthy) on what he says or the way he votes? He voted for the budget and then he gave a resounding speech to senior citizens without mentioning that he voted for it,” said Seymour, who voted along with McCarthy for the same budget.

Darry Sragow, McCarthy’s campaign manager, called the Wilson attack “an outrageous distortion of Leo McCarthy’s record.” He said McCarthy opposed the reduction in benefits on the floor of the Assembly and fought to increase them right up until the budget vote.

“They’ve taken one vote that was not a vote on SSI but on the entire budget of the state of California and they are attempting to suggest that it somehow counters Pete Wilson’s total record of opposition to adequate benefits to senior citizens,” Sragow said.

Wilson’s campaign, in a statement released Friday, declared that as a result of the budget vote “some 700,000 needy Californians on Social Security did not get their full share of a congressionally authorized cost-of-living increase.”

In addition to releasing the statement to the press, the Wilson campaign began a statewide television advertising campaign Friday to draw attention to McCarthy’s vote.