You phase in the changes just like they did in 1983 when they raised the retirment age from 65 to 67. I favor personal accounts with a smalled defined benefit program to cover survivor and disability benefits. You eliminate the government liability for the program. Over 30 countries have done exactly that including Chile and the UK. SS is the easiest entitlement program to solve.
There might be an inventive solution. I actually think there is some equilibrium point in which you could increase federal employment to the point that it would put enough money back into the economy through consumption to bring back the private economy and you could do that while reducing the number of people who are on entitlements.
Government is already too big. Obama is growing it even faster than Bush. When you increase government spending, you take money out of the private sector. The USG is already borrowing almost half of the money it spends.
Employing someone in a federal job is not exactly the same as handing someone an entitlement check.
Whether it is a state job or a federal job every job that there is increases consumption and demand for that consumption and in the case of the federal government, the higher job security increases the likelihood of more consumption from the person holding it, thereby increasing demand and pepping up the private market.
As I’ve said, in a normal scenario I’d never advocate such a thing. I however, realize that we are close to being forever in the hole and that it might take unconventional thinking to pull us out.