After reading the answers published on the Clarion’s poll (on the Longevity Bonus), I would like to suggest another alternate idea for consideration. The bonus was originally a “gift of appreciation” to the pre-statehood residents for developing the area to where it could qualify for statehood, and not a program for the poor. It does not seem to be unfair to restore it as first written to the legal recipients who still survive. That is, those who were here before statehood and who maintained continuous residency and for at least 25 years before the age of 65. Any who came after statehood, could then be the ones considered for your proposed seniors are options.
With the records from voting, permanent fund and, if it still exists, the mailing list by which those who would qualify were notified by the then governor of the state, Jay Hammond, about the bonus program and how to apply when ready. It should not me an impossible task to determine eligibility.
In answer to Sharon of Kenai, if you had lived in a village on a subsistence lifestyle which gave you no retirement fund or Social Security, so the bonus was your only income you could receive with the knowledge you had earned it proudly, would you feel you had “learned to live without it” when the only thing you had left was welfare or living off relatives?
Georgia L. Griffin
Peninsula Clarion ©2015. All Rights Reserved.