As crazy as this might sound, give this a minute of thought.  Means testing has a precedent in Medicaid; specifically, it pertains to getting government assistance with nursing home care expenses.  People are expected to drain their own savings paying for their own care before they can get any help.  After all, Medicaid is supposed to help the poor.  Were such measures not in place, this nation would go broke trying to pay for universal elder care.  (Does this sound familiar?) 

     I don't like this idea, but unless there are fundamental changes made either to the Social Security program itself or to the way such a program is funded (FairTax, anyone?), the Democrats will force means testing on us as a means of keeping Social Security afloat.  This would be the most sweeping and effective way of preventing the system as it exists from going broke:  deny the payment of benefits to retirees who live off of their savings, pensions, or investment incomes until such time when those sources of income have been exhausted.  These people, God love 'em for being thrifty and doing the right things, don't need their Social Security payments.  Do they deserve them?  Under the auspices by which we were sold the FICA  bill of goods, absolutely they deserve those benefits, having paid into the system for so long.  But will we be able to afford it, assuming that everything stays the way it is?

     Tom Sullivan, a Rush guest-host, came forth with a revelation in 2002:  the Social Security problem will fix itself as the Baby Boomers die.  The argument goes that a spike in births must someday produce a spike in deaths, thus alleviating the number of retirees to whom we must issue entitlement payments, which, by definition, is what Social Security payments are.  Until that time, however, what are we to do?  A crisis is coming.  Are we going to take proactive steps now or are we going to sit back and eventually be forced to take a draconian reactive step?