Medary.com

In this editorial in the Wall Street Journal, MFS Financial Advisors Chairman (and Dem.) Robert Pozen answers some of the critics and nay-sayers of Social Security reform.

Some excerpts:
If the litmus test of a reform plan is not cutting scheduled benefits for any significant group of workers, then no viable plan to restore Social Security's solvency will pass muster.

. . . median workers would be able to buy 14% more in goods and services with their monthly checks from Social Security under progressive indexing in 2045 than they can with these checks today. That does not sound like a "benefit cut" in terms of real purchasing power.

And the money paragraph:
If Congress is attracted by a package of Social Security reforms combining a milder form of progressive indexing with a 2.9% surtax on earnings above $90,000, it must provide high earners with retirement benefits attractive to them. One possibility would be to devote 1.45% of the surtax to Social Security solvency, and to allow the other 1.45% to be allocated to a personal account invested in market securities. Since such an account would not divert existing taxes away from Social Security, it would not involve any increase in government borrowing. In short, the combined approach would let both parties win--Democrats would get a mix of higher taxes and progressive benefit changes, while Republicans would get personal investment accounts and constraints on benefit growth. And the solvency of Social Security would be restored for all American workers.

If you think you have an opinion on Social Security, you need to read and understand this article. It may change your perspective on the issue.