I applaud the Congresswoman for trying to get students involved with this. Of course, I think she's a left-wing nut job. Nonetheless, I hope that she can help all of us who have been begging students to get involved in an issue that is critically important to our generation.

"Republicans propose private accounts, which do not directly address Social Security's solvency and will actually make it worse by diverting money away from Social Security into private accounts."

If "diverting money away from Social Security" is such a big problem then you better look into the current system, which diverts HUGE amounts into current US Government expenditures completely unrelated to SS. The US Government spends the money and replaces it with IOUs written to itself. Just where do you suppose that the money to pay off these IOUs will come from in 15 years? There are only two possibilities - tax increases or reduced benefits.

The Ponzi scam also known as Social Security can not last forever. It will be harder for the politicians to steal from the future if at least some of the money is in private accounts.

i hear allot of bitching about Bush's plan in this letter... and then a comment about "join the democrats to work out a plan" yet I see no propsal of your own. This is a typical democrat response... hate what bush does because it is bush, but have no option yourself. Nice job.

Translation: "We don't want you to be in charge of your money, you're too stupid which is why we have the government here to spend it for you"

This is one of the more disgusting things I've seen on the BH op/ed page, I'm almost surprised at how low Ms. Baldwin stoops.

I certainly hope readers are intelligent enough to realize that the "surpluses" she speaks of were a)projections and b)projections caused by the largest economic bubble in our lifetimes.

I hope they are also intelligent enough to know that congress has been spending the SS surplus ever since there has been one, through both R and D adminstrations.

The rich people that Baldwin and her friends so disdain are going to be just fine regardless of whether SS is fixed or not. The question is whether the middle class will be hung out to dry because Democrats don't understand money.

"projections caused by the largest economic bubble in our lifetimes."

What are the administration's claims of a ~6% return in the private accounts based on then?

Our current system of SS may be in need of a change but there is no reputable economist who supports Bush's wacky plan. All it is going to do is put SS in a HUGE HUGE debt for a very very long time because it is going to be incredibly costly to set these private accounts up. SS probably does need some work, but I don't think the Bush plan addresses any of the issues and only makes SS even more of a cluster fuck.

Raise the retirement age to 70. There is no reason it needs to be where it currently is. Along with this, increase the amount of money I can put into IRAs and 401K type plans. I'll save for myself and get SS at 70 to use as travel money. Why do Republicans and Democrats need to point fingers at each other and cast blame. Both parties spend too much on the wrong things and then lie about it. Just fix the problem!

As a person who actually has to pay for SS in 30 years, my solution is to drastically cut future benefits.

In order to do that, we should probably let those folks who plan on being retired then know about it now so they can plan for it.

Basically, let's drastically scale it back to only benefit those older folks who truly need it.

Wealth indexing is huge, and could fix all our problems immediately, if done right. There is no reason why Bill Gates needs to aid the effort to bankrupt the country just so he can have some extra walking-around money. Do you have any idea how much SS will pay out for him if nothing changes? Why have working class folks pay a huge payroll tax to afford him that luxury?

"All it is going to do is put SS in a HUGE HUGE debt for a very very long time..."

How is this somehow different than the current situation - SS has a HUGE HUGE HUGE unfunded liability already. Putting some small part of the SS taxes beyond the grasp of politicians for current spending (current case) only make it more likely that there will be some funds available for future retirees.

PS. The unfunded liability of Medicare makes the SS thing look like very small change.

All forms of welfare for old folks are going to be expensive. The funniest part is we deserve it because they vote and we're all too stupid to.

WHERE IS BALDWIN'S SOLUTION? All the problems she states can only be solved with the help of a time machine. What does she propose we do NOW!?

Bush's proposal has plenty of flaws. But instead of dwelling on them, Democrats should take this opportunity to either delineate how to fix those flaws, or come up with a whole new solution of their own.

IF THE DEMOCRATS AREN'T PROPOSING THEIR OWN SOLUTIONS, THEIR CRITICISM IS WORTHLESS! SOCIAL SECURITY NEEDS TO BE SOLVED NOW! PRIV...ER, PERSONAL ACCOUNTS FOREVER! PRAY FOR TERRI! SADDAM PLANNED 9/11!

Because Rep. Baldwin refuses to buy into the Bush Administration's manufactured hysteria on Social Security, her arguments are invalid. Gotcha.

"Because Rep. Baldwin refuses to buy into the Bush Administration's manufactured hysteria on Social Security"

The math required to see the SS problem is at the 2+2=4 level. But then Baldwin has a ticket on the Congressional retirement gravy train and doesn't have to worry about SS.

COMMENT DELETED: Inappropriate language, off-topic

Remember back to 2000... we had a chance to elect Dr. John Sharpless of our very own history department.

He was a smart, pragmatic, moderate republican who would have done an outstanding job representing this district (not to mention a damn good prof). If he would have written this editorial, it would have been a smart and balance evaluation of the plan and its alternatives.

But Madison just couldn't bring itself to elect a person with an "R" next to his name. So instead of pragmatism, we get the talking points that Tammy got from the DNC.

If we're lucky, Dr. Sharpless will throw his hat back into the political ring someday. Who knows, Senator Sharpless has a nice ring to it.

"but there is no reputable economist who supports Bush's wacky plan"

I beg to differ...

Burton Malkiel - Princeton
Jeremy Siegel - U of Penn
Andrew Samwick - Dartmouth
N. Gergory Mankiw - Harvard
Martin Feldstein - Harvard
Harvey Rosen - Princeton
Kristina Forbes - MIT
James Poterba - MIT
Gary Becker - U of Chicago
James Buchanan - George Mason

And thats just a list that i could come up with off the top of my head, i'm sure there would be more if i looked into it. And if their universities don't qualify them as "reputable"... there are a few nobel prize winners in the list too.

Yep, Prof. Sharpless kicks ass. I hope he runs again and wins.

COMMENT DELETED: Inappropriate language

Too bad David Clarenbach didn't get in to this seat years ago. He'd probably still be there and be actually accomplishing things.

Has Baldwin ever really done anything?

Well, you have to define "do anything"

She is about the only member of congress that still thinks that single payer government health care is a good idea.

Oh, and she likes to complain about free trade, showing her vast knowledge of economics.

COMMENT DELETED: Inappropriate language

For those of you who are calling for the democrats to create their own plan for Social Security reform, perhaps you've forgotten that democrats don't control Congress. Republicans do, and they've demonstrated that they aren't interested in working bi-partisanly on anything that would benefit the American people. Instead of reaching across the aisle to accomplish something worthwhile, republican leaders deny democrats' legislation a spot on the agenda because they are more hell-bent on using precious time to pass frivolous bills that appease their Christian-right base.

There are some good republicans out there who recognize how harmful President Bush's privitization plan would be to the Social Security system. Unfortunately, they don't have the final say with the republican leadership. There are plenty of democrats with suggestions to offer, but I doubt they'll be allowed the opportunity to contribute any time soon.

Congresswoman Baldwin's appeal to republican leaders to work bi-partisanly on Social Security reform is a reasonable and beneficial proposition. I wish republican leaders could stop playing defense for once and consider alternatives to their plan.

Republicans have turned into the party of fiscal irresponsibility. They demand services and refuse to pay for them. They fail to look even 10 years into the future when drafting legislation that will have lasting impacts.
Here are the facts: Bush's plan proposes borrowing $5 trillion over twenty years to make up for the cost of creating private accounts. We all know debt is bad -- Bush even says so -- so why is he willing to go forward with his plan? Because he's not planning on paying for it! That'll be our generation's burden!

Bush's plan would also cut benefits by more than 40%, whether or not you opt to privatize. He has to do that because every dollar that is diverted to a private account is a dollar lost from the system. Less money in the system, less services the system can provide. There's some simple math for you.

Would you willingly trade in your car for a more expensive one with fewer features? No. And on top of that, would you agree to pay for your neighbor's leather interior package because your neighbor wanted to pay less for his car? No. It's the same situation with Bush's privitization plan. It's a raw deal for our generation, and we need to speak out about it!