reform Social Security: not at all, halfway, or all the way?

I don't know if this has any legs, but I saw a blog posting on a purported push by President Obama to reform Social Security through the commission he appointed-- in particular, handing it over to corporate (and govt) interests. My thoughts:

Aside from the timing of SS reform, there are difficult choices if one does not trust individuals to control their own 401k-like SS-reformed accounts.

If you semi-deregulate, you have the legitimate concerns expressed the author-- from govt and interest group controlling a valuable resource.

But the status quo is untenable and, beyond that, unjust. First, there's SS's anemic average rate-of-return-- and the injustice of sticking that to the working poor as their primary nest egg.

Second, maybe Obama is bothered that SS results in a negative rate-of-return for African-Americans; they put more into it than they get out. I wish all politicians were bothered by that, but such outrage is all-too rare.

So, trust people (with modest regulation) to take care of their own business, leave it to interest groups and government, or tweak the status quo (extend retirement age, tax benefits, increase painful payroll taxes further). I like the first option!