Remove the current cap on income (currently at $118,000) and the program is sustainable for another 75 years. There is no reason to "means test" unless your goal is to punish people for being successful. If it is, that makes you far worse than a "miserly sonofabitch", it makes you a damn fool.
My goal is to "punish" no one. My goal would be to prevent the kind of abject misery that would result from termination of the Social Security program.
I've been receiving Social Security allotments for over fifteen years. In addition to that I have a generous civil service pension. I also have a nice stack of U.S. Savings bonds and a modestly comforting bank account. Briefly stated, I am financially comfortable. So if it became necessary to reduce my monthly Social Security allotment by ten or twenty dollars I wouldn't even notice it -- and that minor reduction would, collectively, afford some less fortunate individuals continued access to the bare essentials of life.
So, again, for me to oppose such a minor reduction in my allotment, which would not affect me negatively in the least, I would need to be a greedy, miserly sonofabitch.
Your notion that the imposition of such a relatively benign but critically necessary modification in monthly Social Security allotments is "punishing people for being successful" is rather obnoxious. Sorry but I can't think of a more appropriate word for it. If I wouldn't even notice such a nominal reduction in my allotment, how in the world do you perceive it as "punishment?"
Although I attended Catholic school I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember. But I do believe some of my countrymen can use a little dose of religion in its most basic form.