In the 41 years that I have been reading The Post, I have never seen an editorial that was as callous as your May 22 offering "Cut Social Security, Too." You ought to be ashamed.
You have been listening to the macroeconomists who have a computer for a soul. You are willing to ignore the fact that Social Security recipients and other retirees have worked long and hard to build a little nest egg called a retirement annuity. You ignore the fact that it is the inflationary policies of the federal government that have made it necessary to impose cost-of-living adjustments. Unlike private retirement and investment programs that are invested to hedge against inflation, the federal trust funds are invested in the public debt and lose value as the debt grows.
If you believe that too much money is being paid out of the trust funds to retirees, why not reduce the number of retirees by raising the retirement age? This would add able-bodied, experienced workers to the skill-starved labor pool, and it would make it possible for them and older retirees to enjoy a secure retirement when they are too old and too feeble to work. There is no need to push the elderly back down into poverty.
Skipping one cost-of-living adjustment is not a solution for balancing the budget. The government has already yanked old people once, and that did not balance the budget.
If you want to shift income from the rich elderly to poor children without raising taxes, why not go for real tax reform? Eliminate personal exemptions and deductions, and substitute an equal tax credit for each U.S. citizen and a single tax rate for all taxpayers. Such tax reform would be revenue neutral, would take a lot of people off the welfare rolls, would help discourage illegal immigration and would simplify the income tax system.
-- Randolph W. Lee