The losses are coming in large part due to the baby boom retirement. That will eventually subside as they die off later this century. When talking about a societal-wide retirement plan, it's ok to think in the time frame of generations rather than mere decades. It may not be the worst thing to assume there will be a generation of solvancy issues--perhaps much further in the future than you state, depnding on which study one reviews--before the worker to retiree ratio restabilizes. Right now, the baby boom iis an anomoly; the graph equivilent of python that recently ate a pig.
At any rate, why on earth would one trust such restraint from politicians like Gingrich who--minimum required lip service to remain politically viable aside--has made it very clear at a personal and (psuedo) intellectual level to the core of his being he opposes government activity outside "traditional" (i.e. Victorian) roles,and believes the private sector is fundamentally best when left completely and utterly to its own devices. The man abhores even unremittingly successful social policy like Social Secuity on a visceral and unbending philisophical level. The fact he himself is vastly wealthy (not Rmoney wealthy, but..) and never will need a dime of social security, nor will anyone in his family or any friend in his life.
In short, there is ample and good reason for distrust. The issue here isn't benefiting retirees--never has been--but really just an unremitting war against any successful actions by government that interfere with ivory tower delusions of recreating a mythical version of The Gilded Age.
I'm not a Gingrich fan as you can suspect.
