What's the short answer?

Yesterday, I complained about Senator McConnell's complete nonanswer to a question I wanted to hear the answer to: How do personal accounts deal with the Social Security solvency problem? I analyzed McConnell's nonanswer as: They don't!

Note: I like short answers. Some things require long, complicated answers. But when I hear a long, unclear answer, I suspect bad motives. I think: You don't know what you're talking about! You're trying to hide something from me! You think I'm dumb enough or apathetic enough to give up trying to understand and will let you and your friends make whatever decisions you like! Long answers are disrespectful. Long answers are anti-democratic.

My post about Senator McConnell brought in some email, by no one attempted to answer the question simply and directly. One emailer pointed me to this website, which is obviously not designed to reach out to anyone who isn't already ideologically wedded to the President's position. It begins with a rant about the "lies" told by "the Left." I'm not going to wade through that, and I don't trust an explanation from anyone who begins like that. Anyway, it looks like the same old obfuscation that really only says it's better to have the money in personal accounts than held by the government.

I'm not on the left or the right, and I'm not committed to the success of either party on this issue. I have no ideological commitment about which policy approach is better. I don't get all jazzed up about Ownership or Preserving the Legacy of Franklin Roosevelt.

Talk to me clearly in sane, rational, pragmatic terms. If you're saying we ought to change things now because of a big financial problem, you need to present your plan as a way to save or put more money into the program. And if you can't put that in a couple straightforward sentences, I will not trust you.