BS. As long as SS is a mandatory system, why should it be means tested? If what you put into the system bears no relation to what you get out of it, then it is just another wealth redistribution scheme that no self-respecting conservative should accept. Allowing the government to establish means testing is fraught with all kinds of problems. A person's economic situation can change dramatically, even after 62. And whatever means testing is proposed will not affect the looming demographic problem created by the huge cohort of baby boomers who will be going on the rolls in a few years. It will be our children and their children who will pick up the tab. "I got mine, sorry you can't get yours" won't sit well with those born after the cutoff date.
SS does not have to go bankrupt if some changes are made. Personal accounts linked with a reduction in the defined benefits portion of the system can put SS on a firm financial basis permanently.
But the best thing is that by means testing social security you get away from a mentality of a "universal entitlement". Once you put a dent in the fact that someone is "automatically" entitled to a certain benefit level, then you undermine support for the program.
Rather specious reasoning. The reason there is a mentality of "universal entitlement" is due to the fact that SS is compulsory and there is a specific formula, which is used to compute benefits based on contributions. Once you delink contributions from benefits, you will have a political firestorm, which will cause the politicians to bend to the popular will and be gone.
If someone is not "automatically" entitled to a defined benefit, that is when you "undermine support for the program." Who wants to pay into a system and not get any or little benefit? SS is already taxed based on other sources of income.
My father worked like a dog for 65 years, retiring at 90. Even though he received the maximum allowable SS retirement income, he never even came close to recouping what he'd paid in. So it already has a built-in bias against the successful and productive. Like any other socialist scheme, it must.
You raise good and valid points. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think that realistically this is about all we could get. Yes, it's still a "universal" system, but in my opinion the long term thinking goes like this:
One of the reasons it's been so hard to change SS is because everyone was invested in it the same way - you retire you get your benefits. Once the more well off people aren't getting the full benefit and it's getting reduced becaue they're successful, an entire portion of the population begins to think the whole program is no good. You have to start chipping away at the support somehow. Is this the way to do it? It's certainly not the best, but perhaps it's a start. Combine that with the fact that peopel around my age (34) realize that they're not going to get much out of the current system, and thus are not as wedded to it as older generations, and you gave some groundwork in place to move toward a better system.
Will it work? Who knows. It's surely not perfect, but it's a start I think.