Let's "Means Test" Congress

One of the points that tends to come up in discussions of making Social Security solvent, is "means testing" recipients. Is there anything wrong with this picture? Asking people who paid into a system all their lives, often against their will, with the promise of only a crappy return on their money, and now facing the prospect of being denied even that crappy return, because their income or net worth might be above some arbitrarily set level, which would indicate that they might not "need the money"?

Let's say there's someone eligible for Social Security, who had been paid millions of dollars in, say, book sales. Should that person receive Social Security, since it is obviously not "needed"? How about independently wealthy government employees? Should they receive government pensions on top of the salaries that they "don't need"?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 82% believe members of Congress should take a 25% pay cut until the federal budget is balanced. Only 14% disagree.

That 82% is seven per cent higher than this time last year. Is it too much to ask our ruling class to lead by example? Say what you will about Arnold Schwarzenegger, he didn't need the governor's salary and he didn't take it.

Before we "means test" Social Security, let's "means test" Congress and the Executive Branch. Before we take away the meager returns of Social Security from people who were forced to contribute, some for half a century or more, let's join Barack Obama in asking the "millionaires and billionaires" in Congress and the Executive to do what's "fair", and means test themselves turning down the salaries and pensions, that they are entitled to, much as SS recipients are entitled to theirs.

I'm going to hold my breath until that happens. (When I'm sufficiently blue, I'll audition for the Avatar or Smurf sequels. There's a better chance of that happening. )