Stan Geiger

Means Testing Elderly Entitlements

I recently saw a report on TV noting Bill Clinton had turned 65. The TV cat making the note quipped that Clinton is now eligible for Social Security. Unfortunately, that comment was less quip than fact. Clinton is also eligible for Medicare.

Think back about 3 years, when Hillary Clinton was seeking the presidency. It was reported at that time that the Clintons had pocketed over $100 million since leaving the White House. In spite of that, Bill is qualified to jump on the federal dole just because of his age.

There is one thing the federal politicians can do to shore up Washington's fiscal situation without doing harm to anyone: means test the elderly entitlements. That can be done now; it wouldn't have to be done "over 10 years."

Unless you can make a case that someone worth millions upon millions of dollars should be getting his health care subsidized by Uncle Sam and that he should be getting a gubment check every month, there should be no argument here. Cutting the welfare conduit to the rich should be a no-brainer.

I understand there would be an argument, one over where to set the bar. But I think everyone can agree that certain people are rich beyond question, and they should not be getting government benefits.

I think I would advocate a tiered system. Ninety percent of the country would be left alone relative to elderly benefits. Past a given point of wealth (that would include assets and income), benefits would still be there but diminished. Once a person passed the top line, there would be no benefits at all. I would include an emergency clause. If someone is rich then becomes not rich, he or she could petition for full benefits at that time.

We have to do something about elderly entitlements, folks. It makes perfect sense to go after people that can best afford to take the hit first.

---