and the reason that you can justify claiming the last 17% of income that resides above the cap for S.S. No reason why a 3rd "bend" point can't be introduced for these additional funds that still pays a benefit - say 1% of the contribution.

I would take some exception to this statement from pg. 28.

"Because the sale of securities to the Social Security
trust fund occurs within the federal government, some
analysts contend that the surplus is just an accounting
fiction—the money is spent and gone. There are two
problems with this argument. First, the accumulated
surplus in the trust fund is held in Treasury securities.
For the trust fund to be meaningless, those securities,
issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith
and credit of the U.S. government, would have to be
valueless. In that case, all securities issued by the U.S.
government are an accounting fiction, whether they are
held by the trust fund, foreign governments, investment
banks, pension funds, mutual funds, or any holder of
a U.S. bond. To say that the trust fund has no value is
tantamount to a declaration that the U.S. is unable to
meet any of its obligations."

The S.S. Treasuries are special Treasuries that, by law, are not traded on the open market. They can easily be subjected to another piece of legislation that would give them unequal treatment compared to the publicly traded Treasuries. Any candidate that talks about no new taxes has to recognize that the approx. $150B/yr for the next 20 years will have to be covered by taxes or additional deficits.