Katz, there's another way to look at it.

Social Security never was a 'lock box' or a savings account. It was always a 'pay as you go' system. However, many seniors have the stance that, since they paid into it for so long, they damn well deserve to get their share out of it. Quite frankly, I have no problem with that.

But when it's reversed and you're getting more than 'you' paid for, there doesn't seem to be the willingness to say "Well, we got more than our share so I should pony up". A good example right now is our infrastructure, especially our roads. The gas taxes have not "paid' for the roads in many years - meaning the difference is being made up from general revenues (which means, these days, funded by everyone including the Chinese).

I've read that the problems with Social Security could be solved entirely with something around an eventual 20% cut in benefits. As I understand it, this is done by looking at a simple formula of expected tax revenues versus benefit payout. When Social Security "goes broke", it's not like there's no money - just not enough to pay 100% of the promised benefits.

So, just like teachers in Ohio and Wisconsin, there's money - just not enough to keep the checks coming at large as they had been.

Are you willing to take a cut? If so, how much?

I have to say that it's easy for me to say I will because I'm still at least 17 years from retirement. I know I'd be more nervous if I were 17 months away. I also feel pained when my mom screams about a lack of COLA increases but doesn't say a word about the last COLA increase she got which was more than inflation and that she got no reduction in benefits when the CPI actually went down. That double-standard gets to me a bit.