[media-credit name=’BRYAN FAUST/Herald photo’ align=’alignright’ width=’336′][/media-credit]In a discussion with students and community members, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin tackled the heated Social Security dilemma Wednesday night.

The debate between privatized personal accounts or taking on other alternatives to sustain Social Security spurred intense dialogue between conflicting voices.

Baldwin compared retirement security to the image of a three-legged stool where the legs represent Social Security, private-pension income and personal savings. But she cited decreasing savings rates and pensions as serious threats because more Americans are relying on Social Security benefits in retirement.

The issue is not one Baldwin said she sees as a “crisis” but instead as a series of long-term challenges.

According to Baldwin, the Social Security program will be able to pay out 100 percent of the benefits through 2041 or 2052, depending on expert analyses. Following 2041 or 2052, there will be 80 percent of the benefits available to Americans.

“I do not believe there’s a crisis,” Baldwin said.

The congresswoman urged students to play an active role in Social Security discussion, adding young people will be the affected group if the situation is not amended or changed.

“I believe young people have the most at stake,” Baldwin said. “The debate in many ways has ignored young people.”

The controversy centers on the issue of privatization, which would entail diverting a portion of Social Security payroll taxes into individual accounts. Private accounts would be subject to the economic market and investments, which Baldwin argued could adversely affect the retirement plan for account holders.

“Even if you feel very strongly we’ll have a decent market for the rest of our lives, the volatility of yearly fluctuations can severely affect a person’s plan,” Baldwin said.

The private-account plan and agenda have not been detailed by Washington, and, according to Baldwin, there is only a general concept.

But UW senior Brett Magaram said he supports the basic concept behind privatization.

“I would rather have something that’s my own that I could control and not left up to people in Washington,” Magaram said. “You either have to reduce young people’s benefits or increase taxes, both of which I think are not that great of ideas.”

Still, Baldwin questioned the success of private accounts in situations other than retirement. If a young working person became disabled and in need of long-term Social Security assistance, the account earnings may not generate enough support, Baldwin said.

She added the young persons who lack private accounts would jeopardize the “fundamental American value” of Social Security.

Madison citizen Frank Harris said handing money to individuals may prove problematic.

“Our generation tends to think we can handle our money and beat the market, but there are economic ups and downs,” Harris said. “Just because you manage it on your own doesn’t mean it’ll work.”

Other community members and students questioned the need of current government programs which tie up funding.

“I think we need to think about community values,” Brown University junior Brian McGuirk said. “We need to look at programs and general approaches to government that enhance community life.”

McGuirk added there are a number of unnecessary military programs which could receive less funding or could be deleted.

Instead, Baldwin suggested lifting the payroll tax cap from the current $90,000 or possibly eliminating it altogether would solve the problem and be the more pragmatic approach when dealing with both houses of Congress.

But Wanda Williamson and Midge Miller, two Madison citizens involved in a Madison Institute study on Social Security, said leaving the program alone for five years is the best option.

“I think the right course of action for the next five years is to do nothing but to continue to reiterate this is an important program that we need to keep our thumbs on,” Williamson said.

Williamson suggested a combination of raising the payroll tax by .2 percent and increasing the ceiling of the payroll cap in the next five years.