Can SS be tweaked?

Detroit Free Press: Social Security is going broke -- that's the blunt statement often heard these days, particularly as President George W. Bush's economic summit highlighted the issue last week.
But Social Security will not vanish even if the country does nothing. The benefits would decline, to be sure, stabilizing somewhere around 70 percent to 75 percent of current levels, according to most estimates.
That's obviously an unacceptable rate for keeping America's elderly secure, but it's not nothing, either. It's enough that some tweaking, short of payroll tax increases, could strengthen it dramatically. Ideas so far include raising the retirement age further, slightly slowing the growth rate for benefits and keeping some estate tax, with the revenue earmarked for Social Security.
Social Security has been wildly successful at combating poverty among the elderly, particularly among women. That core value must be protected as this debate moves forward. The monthly payment, adjusted annually for inflation, provides at least a bit of dignity in old age for all retired workers and surviving spouses who have not held formal jobs.
Insurance plan
Although it's common to talk about how much people pay into the system vs. how much they are likely to get back out, Social Security is not and never has been an investment. It's an insurance plan, with the added twist that much of it relies on each new generation of workers pledging to take care of the working generation that preceded them and raised them. As a bargain among all Americans, Social Security assures that everyone who has worked will have a minimal, inflation-adjusted economic base in their old age. Rich or poor, we're all in this one together.
So as the president pushes private accounts, America has to decide whether it wants to change, at least in part, from a pooled insurance system to one that depends on investment with its inherent, individual risk. The cost of switching is huge: $2 trillion in new debt is the current figure being bandied about to cover the cost of existing retirees as younger workers divert their payments into investment accounts.
This basic philosophical distinction often gets obscured as people start throwing around dollar figures and solutions.