Refer to "easily solved if we could get Republicant obstructionists out of the way." Sure sounds like you'd like to do away with dual party government.

Probably worth mentioning that since Reagan, there have been two serious attempts to address the SS fiscal imbalances. George Bush II attempted to restructure SS to extend its viability, and Barack Obama also floated some significant proposals that would have extended the viabiity date.

In both cases, the "obstructionist" was Bernie Sanders, because he viewed both proposals (For Bush, it was exposing part of the Trust Fund to the capital markets to increase its ROI as well as increasing the retirement dates; both Obama, it was moving the CPI formula to another, slower growing metric) as cuts to the program (as well as increasing risk).

So, you'd agree, I'd expect, that it's good and proper to "obstruct" changes that cut SS and increase risk; however, it's still obstruction.

SS fiscal viability can (obviously) be extended in one of two ways. You can either cut the program or improve its funding. As a retiree, I'd like to see the latter rather than the former, but I am a little tired of Democrats being preachy on this subject when they float bills that include five TRILLION in new spending but are so terrified of the voters that they can't include a proposal to either remove/modify the cap or increase the payroll tax, all while they're kicking back hundreds of millions to rich voters in blue states by changing the SALT deduction rules.

So, bottom line? The Ds, today, have control of the agenda. Worried about Social Security's funding going forward? They should be; the Fed chairman tells them once a quarter in testimony that they need to fix it, and he/she has been telling them that since Greenspan. Put a damn standalone bill on the table to modify the cap or increase the payroll tax. If they don't, then quit blaming the Republicans. It's not on them.