[Bernard]

Absolutely. I hear "lock-box", I think somebody on the federal payroll has just buried a coffee-can full of money in the backyard behind the Treasury building to hold until I retire.

I don't associated "lock-box" with a promise from me to me to pay me some day. That sound more like a New Year's resolution.

But the original statement stands. Unless there is a major change in the process, there is no reform - there's just a change in tax or spending rates.

[Racehorse]

Absolutely. I hear "lock-box", I think somebody on the federal payroll has just buried a coffee-can full of money in the backyard behind the Treasury building to hold until I retire.

That's why brother Gore didn't get very far with it.  Saturday Night Live and Comedy Central made a few bucks with it, though.

I don't associated "lock-box" with a promise from me to me to pay me some day. That sound more like a New Year's resolution.

Good.  Because it is not a self-promise.  The idea, never developed, implied Congress would somehow magically keep its fingers out of the lock box which holds the tax money collected from employers and their employees.

But the original statement stands. Unless there is a major change in the process, there is no reform - there's just a change in tax or spending rates.

Actually, that is not the original statement, which was:    So if private investments are removed, where's the reform?

Unless I mistake what you mean by process, which I might, we seem to be in substantial agreement.  Any change, with or without private accounts, which achieves solvency reforms SS.  Reform with private accounts, depending on how they are created and administered, would be better.