Social Security - as I recall, can't look it up at the moment - originally established an eligibility for benefits age that tracked right on top of the mortality rate at the time (I think). Thus, SS was never meant to be an old age "pension" for perhaps twenty years of retired living. It was designed - originally - to be used as a "net" of last resort, not a "hammock" of first resort.
So, step one is to raise the age at which older citizens can collect benefits. Period. This is within the exact spirit of FDR's Social Security, so there is nothing peculiar or radical about it.
Also, means-test it. It was originally a form of social insurance - make it be exactly that. Just like you don't use health insurance if you aren't sick, there's no need to spend social insurance money on someone who doesn't need it. It's insurance - treat it as such.
And, put it back in a trust fund.
Third, and this also invokes another topic - get the Federal Reserve out of the business of trying to achieve "full employment". We always say we want responsible citizens to forego consumption and start socking away money over their working careers for retirement. And yet, we penalize saving so much through reckless inflationary monetary policy...and then we force these earnest, responsible savers into investing their savings just to kepp pace with inflation. Nothing wrong with investing, but it is no substitute for saving a nest egg, and so we need to reward the very behavior that would take pressure off of Social Security.
I don't care if there is a D or R (or anything else) beside his/her name - the first person to pick up the mantle of true entitlement reform is going to get my attention and probably my vote.