Thursday, the award for Most Obnoxious Political Threat went to James Dobson, for his pledge to punish the GOP if it dares nominate a presidential candidate he disapproves of. After much consideration and early-morning caffeine, I'm giving today's award to the AARP, whose knickers are in a twist over the Bush administration's support for Republican Senator John Ensign's plan to impose a means test on seniors enrolled in the Medicare Drug Plan. Responding to the proposal, which would impact participants with incomes over $80,000 a year, AARP policy director John Rother warns:

"You say it saves money and these people can afford it, but it also eats away at the incomes of seniors. It erodes their sense of the reliability on these federal programs, and it certainly erodes political support."

Frankly, I'm not sure why Rother even bothered with his first two points, when the third is so clearly what he wanted to convey. Filtered through lawmakers' self-preservation-obsessed brains, his argument will effectively register as: "Blah blah. Blah blah blah. And if you support this monstrosity we'll screw you at the polls." But--and I cannot believe I'm saying this--Ensign and the Bushies are on to something. With all due respect to the affluent old folks who'd have their incomes and faith in government so devastatingly eroded by any sort of levy, this country's entitlement burden is ominous and getting more so with every aging Boomer. If we want to avoid any radical overhauls, like the privatization of certain programs, we should be looking for non-traumatic ways to rein in costs. As The Washington Post's piece on this points out, there's already means testing on the part of Medicare that covers costs like doctor's visits. Also noted is the fact that the Finance Committee, of which Ensign is a member, must soon begin searching for ways to avoid already scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors. The Post also includes quotes from liberal activists and wonks, acknowledging that, if handled properly, such testing is a perfectly reasonable adjustment to the massively expensive drug program. Now, maybe the specific plan in question needs a bit of tinkering. (For instance, ensuring that the threshold rises with inflation.) Or maybe it would prove too complicated to administer. But the annoying thing is that none of those issues will ever be discussed because most politicians wet their pants every time the AARP furrows its 800-pound brow. --Michelle Cottle