Why not read what you quoted above your note? I didn't say the report was perfect.
>fill in the details. The basic point, though, is that in order to get
>their conclusion that the system is going broke, the trustees assume
>economic growth for the the next few decades at sub-Depression levels.
"sub-depression growth" is an oxymoron. The report assumes low growth, not negative growth, much less "sub-depression growth." Higher growth estimates would reduce the shortfall or, if sufficiently high, eliminate (as in fact the Trustees' "optimistic" scenario does).
The political fact with which we have to work is that the 'middle' scenario assumes anemic growth, relative to the present, so the shortfall becomes a political fact.
We could yell and scream that there will be no shortfall and be ignored entirely.
Alternatively, we could dispute the probability of slow growth and provide palatable solutions to the shortfall that the rest of the world is referring to when they deal with the issue.
We chose option b.
MBS