This past Wednesday Laurence Lewis posted this diary here: http://www.dailykos.com/..., the main point being that SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT! And there it is. Those eight words are the very essence of our argument. Those eight words will scuttle this unwise proposal because cutting Social Security does nothing to reduce the federal budget deficit. SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT so that even significant cuts to the program would not reduce the deficit by a dime. As simple as this is, it is the winning argument. There's no truthful answer to those eight words.
Well, there is the argument that the system needs to be shored up for the benefit of generations to come, and there's something to that one. There's actually no shortfall until 2035, but to address it twenty years in advance is a perfectly valid thing to do. However, it makes absolutely no sense to do this as part of a deficit-cutting deal.
If systemic reforms are needed to keep the trust fund humming along for the next, say 50 years, then let's get about doing that in a way that best serves both current and future retirees.
I say this is the winning argument because it is factually-based, undeniable, and simple enough even for our elected representatives to pick up on. And they'll want to do so because as another diarist so brilliantly pointed out, Social Security and Medicare remain the third rail of American Politics, and politicians would much prefer not to get anywhere near that (dangerous)third rail.