In January 1981, U. S. News & World Report published a three-page article entitled "Coming: Drive To Overhaul Social Security." Based on reports of President Reagan's plans for the Social Security system, the article focused on potential changes to "old-age" benefits. The disability component of Social Security wasn't mentioned, except for the statement that Congress avoided the system's collapse by diverting more of the payroll tax into the other two trust funds, thus reducing "the share going into the financially healthier fund for disability benefits."

"Coming: Drive To Overhaul Social Security" was the first. But, by May 25, articles on Social Security were everywhere. On May 12, the Reagan administration proposed a package of sweeping Social Security reforms to be implemented by January 1982, and all hell was breaking loose.

By now most people knew that Reagan and his advisers favored changes to Social Security's future benefits structure, but few thought he'd actually push for drastic and immediate alterations to Social Security's old age benefits. These proposed reforms would have their greatest impact on people just about to retire. Thus, Vickie Cahan and Stephen H. Wildstrom (the authors of Business Week's May 25 article, "Can Reagan revolutionize Social Security?") only mentioned the Disability Trust Fund in passing when they stated that "the entire question of benefit cuts in the near term could be smoothed over by allowing borrowing among the three funds that make up Social Security."

U.S. News & World Report's May 25 follow-up article "Changes to Expect in Your Social Security" also focused on old age coverage, although it did mention - almost as an afterthought - that "tighter eligibility rules for future recipients of disability payments" were under consideration. Things like increasing the waiting period for benefits from five to six months, not recognizing a condition as disabling unless it met some standard of being expected to last for at least 24 months, requiring applicants to have worked for thirty quarters over the past ten years (instead of the twenty quarters presently in force) and, finally, deciding that "a determination of disability could be based only on medical considerations without taking into consideration age, education or occupational problems."

Time magazine also published an article (by James Kelly as reported by Douglas Brew McNeil), "A Slash at Social Security," on May 25. It explained the financial realities behind Reagan's startling proposals: "With negligible inflation rates and a high ratio of taxpaying workers to beneficiaries," everything was fine. But, "in the 1970's...prices (which determine the level of payments) rose at a faster clip than wages (which determine how much money is paid into the system). As a result...funds were depleted at a much faster rate than ever anticipated." But although changes might be needed, Time reassured its readers. Present Social Security recipients need not worry. The proposals "would entail little reduction in monthly payments for the 36 million Americans already on the rolls."

For those not "already on the rolls," establishing a disability would be more difficult under rules changes proposed by Reagan. Among them: "workers would also have to prove they had not been able to hold a job for 24 months prior to receiving payments rather than just twelve months." Yet Time stressed that "for those already on the Social Security rolls, the only trimming in benefits will be the delay of the cost of living increase by three months each year." Having given such assurances, the author of "A Slash at Social Security" seemed to admire Reagan's audacity. Complaints about the plan were described as "beefs," and Social Security referred to as a "sacred cow."

Time author High Sidey was even more positive in his sidebar piece "Right Time for Boldness." This article appeared with a large picture of a smiling Reagan, over the caption "Reagan: ready for more daring."

After stating that "Reagan's boldness in the first four months" had "stunned Washington," Sidey went on to say that, although Reagan's "proposal to reduce Social Security payments produced shock waves," there was a feeling "all through the capital last week...that this is the time for even more decisiveness and daring."

Sidey described Reagan's Social Security push as "creative government," and compared him to Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson in his ability to make "great changes." Yet "Right Time for Boldness" ended on a note of anxiety, as if Sidey had stumbled over a vision of what America might be when the "bold" got through with it.

Noting that the difference between Reagan and FDR or Johnson was that Reagan was "dismantling, cutting, restraining," Sidey warned that when Reagan had finished "swinging the scythe, his Administration will need a creative policy to fill the gaps. The states and the free marketplace may do much of the job - but not all of it."

Thus it fell to the bastion of conservatism, The National Review, to "think the unthinkable" and make the most obvious statement of all. On May 29, the same issue in which Michael Novak presented his article "The Moral Case for Reaganomics," another article "Rescuing Social Security" appeared.

The author of "Rescuing Social Security" - in favor of anything Reagan might propose (and more) - leaped right to the heart of the matter. After detailing a list of measures "long advocated by conservatives," measures which included "reducing the welfare elements that were tacked on over time...eliminating non-medical grounds.....and preventing disability payments from exceeding former earnings," he noted that, of course, the main virtue of these measures was that they would "strengthen the Social Security system without harming retirees."

The National Review was absolutely right. By June, when Congress defeated Reagan's bid to push through sweeping Social Security reforms, proposals to "rescue" Social Security without "harming retirees" would be enormously attractive.

Although popularly portrayed as having been "defeated," Reagan and his advisers had pulled off a major victory by attacking Social Security's old-age benefit structure. Future plans for trimming "other" Social Security benefits would probably succeed, as long as he "compromised" and left the elderly alone.

On June 1, an article entitled "The Gipper Loses One" (by Tom Morganthau, with John J. Lindsey, Eleanor Clift, Thomas M. De Frank, Gloria Borger and Rich Thomas) appeared in Newsweek. Apparently, Reagan and his advisers took their losses well. Although Reagan's "hasty proposal to alter social security is renounced by the Senate, 96-0," Reagan was looking at the "bright side" and sending congressional leaders a letter which "insisted that his Administration 'is not wedded to any single solution' for the system's actuarial ills."

Treasury Secretary Donald T. Regan was quoted as saying that "the Administration was prepared to compromise." And, Congress would probably accept some compromise that didn't hurt Social Security's basic "old-age" coverage, because "the problems of the system remain acute, and even Democrats agree that changes must be made."

Reagan's Social Security attack was brilliant, and it left legislators in a tricky position. Congress couldn't pretend that no long-term changes were needed, especially under the present funding structure. But having just emerged as the "saviors" of the system, congressmen would naturally prefer not to be associated with painful or unpleasant measures designed to keep the system solvent in the future.

This Congress would probably prefer to rest on its laurels and vote a stop-gap solution, but only the same old stand-bys were available. In its four-page article "Can You Afford To Retire" which immediately followed "The Gipper Loses One," Newsweek's Harry Anderson and Mary Hager reviewed the short-term solutions, under the subheading "Rescue."

This article quoted Social Security Commissioner John Svahn, who said that "no one needs to worry about social security going bankrupt (because) Congress and the Administration are going to put in more money." Still, the article observed that what was needed was more financial "finagling," as advocated by "some experts" who believed that "the problem can be solved by allowing cash-short funds to borrow from those that are temporarily flush."

The Reagan Administration opposed more inter-Fund borrowing, if only because the Democrats supported it. But Trust Fund transfers looked like the short-term solution Reagan needed now. When the Administration "gave," and his "compromise" was finally struck, Reagan would be well on his way to the long-term solutions he favored.

Many of those "welfare-type" benefits which had been "added on" to Social Security would be trimmed. And, by "tightening" the standards for disability, many people who would have been considered "eligible" in the past would fail to "qualify" now. Some old-age changes, too, might gradually be phased in.

Thus, Reagan's "ill-timed" assault on Social Security had really been as "bold" as Time reported. If he won, his vision of an American social program would prevail. But even when he lost, he'd made great strides.

But Congress was unlikely to point that out. The legislators were too busy taking credit for "defeating" him, although they must have realized they would have to give him other Social Security concessions, or take the blame for the system's near-bankrupt status.

In the long run, Reagan looked forward to getting a lot of what he wanted. The economy was poised on the brink of a recession. Our federal deficit was overwhelming. But there were some indications that the country was on the verge of "bouncing back."

Reagan's advisers believed that when Reagan implemented the rest of his economic plans, the economy would not only improve but prosper. Social Security's future books would balance and Reagan would become the man of the hour. All he needed to do was keep the Trust Funds solvent, here and now.

The obvious solution was to borrow from the Medicare and Disability Trust Funds. Despite the articles on abuse of the disability and health insurance systems which had appeared since 1979, their Trust Funds were financially healthier than the old-age Fund.

But these Trust Funds were also headed for bankruptcy within the next few years, if projections were correct. What would Congress and the President do then? Borrow back money from the old-age Trust Fund?

Reagan and the Congress could reduce Disability and Medicare expenses by tightening eligibility standards. But here, too, there were limits. More than 50% of the people who appealed "ineligible" decisions won, and that was under the present standards. When tighter standards applied, who knew how that figure might increase?

And there was a long-term danger. Just how many more applicants could Social Security Disability refuse before the whole thing ended up in the courts as a class action suit?

Even with all the added regulations - having to show you'd been unable to work for two years; having your disability status based only on medical considerations, so that you'd have to have enough money left to hire an expert witness for your hearing, and the system could still refuse you if you were a dockworker because you could theoretically handle the physical aspects of work as an advertising executive; and finally, if you won, having the total amount you could receive tied to some statistical "average credited earning" which bore no resemblance to your past income or present economic needs - some people would still apply, and fight, and win. You couldn't call it an "insurance" unless somebody collected.

Clearly, eligibility standards could only be tightened so far. And there was another reason why tightened standards would not be a bold enough move to "rescue" Social Security. Efforts focused only on the future would be slow and have, in the long run, limited effectiveness.

But there was something that could be done to "beef up" the Disability and Medicare Trust Funds, both now and in the years ahead. Something that would make borrowing from them a reasonable long-term solution, instead of a constant shuffle back and forth between accounts that were ever on the verge of bankruptcy. Reagan could "review" current Social Security disability recipients, those whose benefits had been awarded under the old "liberal" regulations.

Social Security Disability reviews were not only legal and proper, they'd been mandated by Carter's Congress. Once every three years for the "temporarily" disabled, once every five to seven years for those whose disability was "permanent." The reviews were to begin in January 1982.

Of course, when Congress passed the legislation it was (at least partly) thinking of cleaning up Social Security's act, of checking to see that recipients were still alive or hadn't been working for the last six years.

But now the Social Security system, under Ronald Reagan, not only could but must review a large number of people getting disability checks. When it did, Reagan could honestly claim he was not reducing benefits to anyone presently on the rolls. A review is not a benefit reduction. What honest person could object to a review?

If there was a gray area of disagreement which led to a temporary suspension of checks, anyone who proved his claim would eventually get his benefits in full. Of course, during that gray area, Medicare benefits would also be suspended, creating savings to two out of the three Social Security Trust Funds for as long as the "review" went on.

All Reagan had to do was push the deadline up a little. In fact, he'd already ordered Social Security to begin cranking up its review machinery. And because the Social Security reviews were mandated, the Reagan administration did not keep its plans a secret.

Wall Street Journal reporter Bert Schorr discussed just what areas needed review in his April 9 article "Reducing the Rolls: Administration Seeks to Cut Ineligible Recipients From Disability Lists, but Task Will Be Difficult."

Schorr cited four examples of ineligible clients receiving benefits. A man, supposedly confined to a wheelchair, who got up and walked as soon as he left his doctor's office. A construction worker with a back injury who could have done related work, although he may have refused because of the possibility of reinjury. A 27-year-old man who notified Social Security that he'd returned to work, but whose benefits nevertheless continued to be sent for almost a year.

And as an example of how you can often win if you appeal, a 61-year-old woman who was honest about having gotten part-time flexible work to supplement her $220-a-month checks. Not only was she declared ineligible to continue receiving disability benefits because she was able to earn an additional $40 a week, she was also told to repay a year's worth of benefits. On appeal, she was still found ineligible for disability, but she was released from a $2,648 overpayment because "it was disbursed as the result of an SSA administrative error."

While two of these four examples related to clients receiving benefits when they didn't qualify under Social Security's criteria, and one was a case of outright fraud, the overall focus of "Reducing the Rolls..." was administrative error. Case files lost or shipped back and forth. Checks disbursed long after benefit recipients had properly notified Social Security that they should cease.

Undeniably, Social Security was sloppy. Schorr quoted Peter McGough, from the General Accounting Office, as saying, "Once you're on disability, Social Security almost never checks your case again unless you die or voluntarily go back to work." Or, as Schorr pointed out in his examples, often not even then.

Now that America had to tighten its belt, tightening Social Security administrative procedures seemed like a good idea. Thus Schorr reported that Reagan appointees were giving "high priority" to "removing malingerers and other ineligibles from the disability lists." The reason, of course, was the "indirect but important link between improper disability claims and the cash bind threatening Social Security retirement benefits."

As Schorr noted, most of the proposals to rescue Social Security included "tapping Social Security tax revenues normally allocated to disability and dipping into the balance remaining in the disability trust fund. Such ideas," Schorr speculated, "may have encouraged President Reagan to promise an 'intensive review' by the Social Security Administration 'to ensure that only the truly disabled receive disability benefits.'"

But Schorr's article was based on the assumption that he understood what Reagan spokespeople meant when they spoke of a "review." Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect.

Yes, Reagan advisers had already drawn up and given Social Security guidelines to assist them in preparing for "an intensive review." But these guidelines didn't tell Social Security to increase productivity and efficiency by organizing its case files, upgrading its outdated computer system, or making sure its recipients weren't dead or working.

These guidelines told Social Security to challenge clients, paying special attention to people in certain categories. A statistical sampling had been taken. A group of people had been identified as being the "most expensive" clients in the system: young people, people with children, the mentally retarded and the emotionally disturbed. The instructions given to the state agencies were simple. Seek to terminate each and every one of your clients who fits this profile.

Five months later, Harrison Rainie would say it well in his Daily News article "Swinging at waste, fraud & abuse - and hitting people":

"Government was evil because it squandered resources through 'waste, fraud and abuse'...Government spending was ballooning because of 'waste, fraud and abuse'...(Reagan) promised to balance federal ledgers by 1984 by eliminating 'waste, fraud and abuse.'

"It was a message of compelling political simplicity, and it relieved him of the obligation of spelling out what programs would have to go in order to bring government spending under control. It also implied that budget cutting would be a painless exercise for most Americans because only turf-protecting bureaucrats and chiselers would be hurt...

"The problem is that there is no line item in the federal budget labeled 'waste, fraud and abuse,' so all the budget reductions the President has wrung through Congress, and is seeking now, hurt people who do not deserve it..."

Years later, when I thought about the first months after the Reagan administration gave its review "criteria" to Social Security, I wondered why the public didn't hear about it sooner. After all, many of the crueler cuts proposed by Ronald Reagan hit the papers and created quite a stir.

Americans wouldn't support ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches, or 61-year-olds who were about to take early retirement having their benefits slashed by thousands of dollars a year. So why didn't the disability guidelines blow up in the papers? Undoubtedly, there were leaks.

In October 1981, the Daily News printed an entire article by Frank Van Riper on the "leak" process, entitled "Official-ly, they fight Ron." And while the Social Security Administration wasn't mentioned in the "leak" list, just about every other major governmental agency was. Clearly, those who attempted to give advance notice of Reagan's disability "review" plans were met with a resounding yawn.

For one thing, the papers were already overflowing with the long list of Reagan's other targets. The list included Food Stamps, Medicaid, community development grants, Aid to Dependent Children, mass transit subsidies, nutrition programs, public works programs, extended unemployment benefits, oil and gasoline price controls, the Council on Wage Price Stability, the Carter Administration's proposed rules to require school districts to provide bilingual education, and all 300,000 jobs in the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act.

As James Weighart noted in his February 4 Daily News column "The budget-ax jitters break out in Washington," the list of groups that could suffer under Reagan's economic and budgetary proposals included "farmers, home owners, ranchers, educators, veterans, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the young, the construction industry, airport users, truckers, shippers, scientists, Social Security recipients, retired federal workers, small businesses, industries and businesses hurt by foreign imports," and even "the military-industrial complex."

But there was another reason why the upcoming disability reviews weren't news. Simply put, they weren't news. News is what the public will get upset about. The propaganda campaign against the disabled had been so successful that most Americans now approved the concept of putting the disabled under a microscope.

Most Americans thought they knew what Reagan meant when he said the word "review," a paperwork nightmare that would shake up those complacent people who sat around taking our tax money. After the shake-up, those who were truly qualified would remain.

But the others, that group of "cheaters" that had now assumed mythic proportions in the American mind, would be off the rolls and out looking for an honest job. Where they would find one in an economy that already had an unemployment rate of more than 8.4% was their business.

A "man with an ax" had been elected to the presidency, because he promised to use it to cut away the tax burden of the middle class. Through the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1981, as I skimmed through the papers, there was little to warn me how soon Ronald Reagan would stand before me like the serial murderer in some made-for-TV movie, budgetary "ax" in hand.

"Just do everything I say and I won't hurt you," he'd whisper. And I'd have so much to live for that at first I'd bow my head, submit, comply. And yet, I knew that the next scene in the made-for-TV movies was always of a park at night, of policemen playing flashlights over the bound and mutilated corpse of the murderer's latest victim.

Eventually, I'd grapple for the ax. But somewhere in the odd, grim struggle, I'd come to understand that I wasn't in a personal battle at all. My desperate fight was only a tiny part of a larger war. The system's determination to destroy my life was only a part of its larger determination to destroy millions of lives, if it could. The proper term wasn't "murder," it was "genocide."

Although I'd live for years under the most crushing personal attack, there was nothing personal in it at all. Still, as Yossarian remarked in Joseph Heller's Catch 22, if the bullet hit me, I'd be personally dead.

An unwilling soldier in America's Disability War, I soon would find that the deck was more than stacked against me. Bound by "Ronald's Rules of Combat," and forced to follow the enemy's schedule (Monday-Friday, 9-5), my battles would be waged on paper, against a faceless enemy. And in this war of "disinformation," lies, and anecdotes, I'd be a winner if I lost less than everything.

Click here to move on to Section Twelve

Click here to return to "Freebook" page