I watched some senate testimony on this. I've always been a huge advocate of removing the cap from FICA, but have never seen any analysis of what impact that would have on the fund. For me, it didn't matter. It was an issue of fairness (why tax those who can afford the least at a profoundly higher rate than those who can afford it the most - for what is after all, a communal safety net?). But, one of the more interesting things I heard during the testimony was that raising the cap to $140,000 - not eliminating it as I propose - would eliminate 47% of the Fund's shortfall. This wasn't disputed by anyone. Amazing, idn't it? Makes me think that eliminating the cap entirely might be enough all by itself to correct the problems SS faces.
What got Governor Lamb of Colorado in such trouble, imo, was not his statement that the "elderly have a duty to die and get out of the way of the next generation" but had far more to do with his SS reform idea. "Pay back everything everyone paid in, plus interest, and then subject them to means testing." All those assholes that put $30,000 to $40,000 in and took $250,000 or more out probably didn't like that too much. Particularly those who already had several million/billion laying around to begin with.
I've no problem with means testing, but the most important thing to do is eliminate the cap. Hell, I bet if they did that, they'd probably be able to reduce the rate for everybody.