if you read the comments who developed the reforms, whether jake pickle or pat monahan, they said in multiple places that it was their intention to keep the program financed on a pay as you go basis. and the fact that they wound up with a solution that had big surpluses in some years and big deficits in other years wasn't as intentional as many people now believe. what they were trying to deal with was a short-term emergency. trying to make sure the checks didn't stop in 1983 and trying to arrive at an average balance over the long-term. as you point out, that resulted in an unsustainable solution. because as time went on, the surplus years faded into the past. again, they were trying to do a lot of things under emergency conditions in 1983. the intention is not to critique what they did, but simply to point out that as they defined long-term balance, they didn't give the same level attention to what was happening on an annual basis. >> i presume you agree with him? >> actually, i probably would disagree with all three of the answers that chuck gave. >> come on. >> that's why you hav