Andrew rose to the occasion and came up with a perfectly acceptable definition for the phrase "sustainable solvency" used by the think tanks in their entitlement reform plan.

But...and it's a big but...this is really nothing more than attempt to come up with a process for cutting entitlement spending.

I completely understand the need to make these and all other programs in the federal budget fit within the revenues that will be collected, to make the revenues match the spending, or some combination of the two.

But coming up with a theoretical 75 -year "budget" for these programs and then relying on a trigger mechanism to do the dirty work is really nothing more than an admission that elected officials won't do what's necessary if left on their own.  In other words, this is like a base closure commission and process for entitlemnent programs?

Two final thoughts:

1.  Gramm-Rudman-Hollings had triggers such as the ones suggested by the think tanks.  They never worked.

2.  A 75-year budget?!  One-year federal budget projections are notoriously inaccurate and five-year projections are considered to be a joke.  Does anyone think that projections made when Social Security was enacted in the 1930s about what would be spent in 2010 would be good for anything but grins?