On that, we can agree. At least the means-testing portion. I had outlined other ideas for resolution earlier in the thread, but I've found myself fending off the "redistributionists" along the way. I endorse aligning the payout with what someone put in (possibly with interest) - no more, and no less.
In other words, if you and your employer put a total of $200,000 in, you benefit should be based on that amount as applied to an actuary table at the time of your retirement taking into account your age, adjusted downward an appropriate amount if you want a surviving spouse benefit. Likewise, if you only contributed (and I use that word loosely) $20,000 over your working years, you should receive a much smaller benefit to reflect your smaller contribution.
Matching benefit with contribution and adjusting for average expected longevity is what I would expect any conservative to seek, if not outright elimination of the program (which would have to occur over a time period, given that such a large population of people that DID pay in are now retired and collecting). What I would not expect to see is a "conservative" advocating eliminating benefits for those that paid in while maintaining benefits for the freeloading deadbeats that are dragging this program down in the first place.
Also, I'd advocate getting rid of the SSI and all the other non-retirement garbage. Or make it a separate program that isn't mandatory. I really don't relish paying a welfare mom because she could find a crooked doctor to prescribe Ritalin to her antsy youngster.
That may well be the easiest part of the fix.
My problem is with those Freepers who complain about those accretions in order to not confront the long-term demographic collapse of the core system.