Administration, Congress Wrangle Over the Budget

Richard Jackson’s “Resist a Compromise on Medicare” (Commentary, Oct. 9) is obviously positioned in the “right” corner of the page. When he attempts to justify the $60-billion attack on Medicare, he assumes a spot beside the budget director and other right-wing Republicans. Why worry about health care when you have your own system?

What Jackson does not seem to realize is that retirees have been selected to bear a major portion of the sacrifice while they also will be paying all of the other “fair share” portions in the budget. Seniors also need food to eat, a place to sleep, a car to drive, as do others; but he would add $60 billion in addition to the seniors’ share!

Senior citizens are the beneficiaries of an insurance program into which they have paid for many years; how can Jackson get off saying that “the budget negotiators’ $60-billion cut is a necessary start to curb our insatiable demand for health care?”

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) has said for some time that we should cut the payroll tax for Social Security because we are piling up too much tempting cash and thus encouraging the use of the money for federal costs. If this is true, then why do we not instead use an amount each year equal to the Part B costs (25%) which comes from premiums as payment to the Treasury? This would not place an extraordinary burden on the beneficiaries.

MORRIS JONES, San Diego