I don’t think we can answer that when the question is phrased that way. Of course you would need to know what the changes are to be in order to know whether they would be good policy. In general, though, I don’t think we ought to have any public policy be sacrosanct. Times change, conditions change, and there is nothing wrong with a “review”.
I think where we mess up on policy discussions is the lack of honesty. Politics has gone sort of Madison Avenue and we talk about what “sells”, and then we talk about the fact that it “sells well”, and then we talk about who’s up and who’s down. We don’t talk honestly about the policy.
For example, there was a public discussion in Oregon many years ago that struck me as part of the problem with our politics: Oregon ended public funding of organ transplants with the argument that the trade off between $150,000 for an organ transplant was at the cost of prenatal care for 150 mothers. What I recall from back then was the argument about, say, a liver transplant for someone in their 70s and not the best of health, versus that prenatal care - which could potentially enhance the entire lives of all of those children - and Oregon was choosing the latter.
What I also remember was the public squawking about wasn’t the life of that 72 year old grandmother WORTH IT? What did we have against Nanas anyway? Death panels!!
What Oregon was trying to do was to say that our resources are not unlimited. We cannot do everything that everyone needs to have done. We have to decide, and we have to decide HOW to decide. How do we evaluate what we can and cannot do?
I am sure you call recall George W. Bush talking about the costs of his middle east adventures? “We’ll pay whatever it takes.” THAT is not good policy. So neither is the appeals to the heart strings about how some unfortunate group isn’t going to get what it wants/needs if we don’t spend x, y and z.
The facts are that resources are not unlimited. There is the valid discussion about how we get “community resources” but no matter where we get them from, nor how much we get, ultimately, it is not unlimited. So discussions have to take place about means of prioritization. How do we spend our community resources, and equally important, how do we decide HOW we decide.
Also - you asked this question: Does the government owe people a living standard in retirement? We are the government. It is not this thing that is distinct and separate and apart from us. It is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” and it reflects what values we as a people share.
There are LOADS of differences of opinions in how we accomplish this. We use “majority rules” most of the time - sometimes we use “super majority rules”. But that the essence of it - how do we want to organize ourselves, what rules do we want to live under, how do we want to address the needs of the community as a whole.
In politics there is always talk about how few leaders do the RIGHT thing as opposed to the politically expedient thing. But the politically expedient thing IS HOW WE DECIDE. In the example of same sex marriage, when there was sufficient public approval for codifying same gender relationships, or at least insufficient public DISapproval, the policy started to change and ultimately became the lay of the land.
Perhaps there are not many, if any, universal “right and wrongs”. Perhaps we are simply evolving.