Analysis: Christie's Bold 'Hail Mary' on Entitlements

Christie...has an ambitious plan to change Medicare and Medicaid. He would also restructure Social Security, changing it from an entitlement to what would effectively be an insurance policy. To that end, he told his audience, "We should remember that Social Security should be retirement insurance." Besides gradually raising the retirement age to 69, and the early retirement age to 64, Christie proposes that the wealthiest Americans forego a Social Security check. We should have, he said, a "modest means test that only affects those with non-Social Security income of over $80,000 per year, and phases out Social Security payments entirely for those that have $200,000 a year of other income." His plan wouldn't kick in for some time - 2022 is his phase-in date. Christie promised his proposal "would not affect seniors currently in these programs or seniors approaching retirement." Seniors who hold onto their jobs would see lower taxes - Christie's plan would mean that the government would stop collecting payroll taxes from seniors working beyond the age of 62. Christie would also alter the means testing that is currently in place, with wealthier Medicare recipients paying more of their premium costs on a sliding scale. Those at the top, making $196,000 or more, would pay 90 percent of their premiums out of pocket. Medicare retirement ages would also go up very slowly - by 2064, the eligibility age would be 69. Medicaid, is, as Christie notes, "the fastest-growing federal entitlement." Christie wants to simplify the program so that states would receive fixed amounts per enrollee, which, he said, citing the Congressional Budget Office, would reduce the deficit by $500 billion over the next decade.

Recommended

Merry Christmas, And Democrats Can Go To Hell Derek Hunter

Advertisement

"Today, we know this: our entitlement system is out of control. Its growth is not sustainable. And inaction threatens the economic health of every generation that will follow us. And let me ask you this, why would I say it if it wasn’t true, I mean there is no political upside to this, right? So why would I come here and say all these things if they weren’t true? I’d love to come here and just give you happy time. Make you feel good, say I’m gonna give you a whole lot more money from someplace. The only reason I’m here to say this, is because it’s an unavoidable truth...I will not pander, I will not flip-flop, and I'm not afraid to take the truth as I see it, whether you like it or not. I want to help lead a national conversation that rewards truth over pandering."

CC: So let’s ask ourselves an honest question. Do we really believe that the wealthiest Americans need to take from younger, hard-working Americans to receive what for most of them is a modest monthly Social Security check? And I say no, and I propose a modest means test that only affects those with non-Social Security income of over $80,000 dollars a year, and phases out Social Security payments entirely for those that have $200,000 dollars a year in retirement income.

HH: So Governor Christie, you’re saying no Social Security for people who have $200,000 dollars in other income coming in annually?

CC: Yes, sir.

HH: Well now, that is actually quite radical, isn’t it?

CC: Oh, I don’t think it’s radical. I think it’s common sense, Hugh. I mean, $200,000 dollars in retirement income, you know and I know how much money you have to have put aside to be able to throw off $200,000 dollars annually in income in retirement. And it just doesn’t seem to me, Social Security was meant to be a safety net to prevent the elderly from living in poverty. And the idea that someone who is making $200,000 dollars a year or more in retirement needs to get a monthly Social Security check, just don’t think makes sense. These programs were set up to try to prevent poverty. Someone making $200,000 dollars or more is not in danger of being in poverty.

HH: Now they’ll have about $4 million dollars in assets if they’re decently managing their money So that’s what it is. But it is, is it not, a straight out wealth tax? It’s a tax on people who accumulated wealth during their life, or inherited it, they might not have earned it, they might have inherited it, but it’s a straight out wealth tax, right?

CC: No, it’s not a wealth tax, Hugh. What it is, is a recognition of the fact that this program needs to provide first and foremost for those people who need retirement security the most. And the fact is that often times in our country’s history, folks who have done extraordinarily well and others who have done moderately well have been willing to step forward and to help folks who need it, whether it’s through private charities, whether it’s through good works that government’s been engaged in. The fact is that Social Security now spends $900 billion dollars a year, and is taking in significantly less in taxes than it’s paying out in benefits every year. You know, this can’t continue. And we can’t have 71% of our federal budget being spent on these types of programs. And I think, for instance, you know, I’m good friends with Mark Zuckerberg. Do we really think that Mark needs to be collecting Social Security? Does he need to collect that check?