Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor: Two letters in the May 13 and 20 issues of the Rappahannock News, signed respectively by Tiny Carney and Robert Herring, provide a fascinating look at an important aspect of the current political debate.
Mrs. Carney says: the overall impression left by media reporting - that the Reagan Administration, by slashing funds proposed for social programs, demonstrates lack of concern for the poor, disabled and aged - is demonstrably false: The proposals are for a lower rate of growth, not for less money. Spending in absolute terms rises by more than $20 billion in the 1983 fiscal year.
Mr. Herrings’s response is an interesting example of specious logic - plausible but wrong! “If we separate the social security budget from the rest of HHS’ activities,” he writes, we’d have a more accurate picture of the Administration’s plans. BUT
the Social Security Administration is in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); its outlays are social; and all government spending “pays for itself’ via either social security taxes (IRS’ term, not
91.7%