GMTA, of course – I just noticed that Ramesh Ponnuru made almost the exact same point on E.J. Dionne’s Social Security article that I did: “But I also think Dionne is making a bigger concession than he realizes. If an immediate 20-30 percent cut in benefits in the year 2042 is no big deal, then how terrible can it be to enact a plan that would involve reducing benefits in that decade so that they're 40 percent lower than currently scheduled?” Good question.