Max, I don't have the slightest idea how those numbers would add up, because I was not crafting a concrete proposal for legislative and bureaucratic chomping, but attempting to image the kind of *practical* politics that HAVE ALWAYS WORKED, on any level from household squabbles to global confrontations. The practical details (the "numbers") are something that are worked out *after* the main struggle is over, but to even *began* that struggle without surrendering in advance, aggressive proposals must be put forth, and they must be put forth in agitational and (in fact) pep rally style to mobilize the troops. There is always a large element of the chaotically contingent in capitalism, but in the present case unless mere contingency saves the program, Social Security is going to be effectively destoryed unless somehow millions of people can be organized at multiple levels of struggle to face the "powers that be" (I say class powers, you say otherwise: no matter here) with threats of change that scare the shit out of them and will make them want to sweep the whole issue under the rug.
It is *not* a short battle. Attacks on social security began in the late 70s (Jimmy Carter, as usual, being the actual initiator for programs then attached to Reagan's name) and have been continual. Whether "we" win this year or not, the battle of attrition will continue until the whole struggle can be shifted to another plane. Produce whatever "reasonable" numbers you can make work in your spreadsheets -- the only absolute requirement is that they excite millions of people and scare the capitalists shitless. Remember Old Joe K saying back in 1936 or so that he would gladly give up half his fortune if he could enjoy the other half in peace. He was scared shitless. If he (and others like him -- e.g., FDR) hadn't been, we wouldn't have Social Security to debate about today
I believe that Paul in different language and from (probably) a different political position than mine has made precisely the same challenge to the idiocy of compromising in advance, thereby letting the enemy dictate the terms of the battle.
Carrol