Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Social Security

As words change, so does public opinion

How are Bush's proposed changes viewed? It all depends on how questions are asked.

By STEPHEN NOHLGREN
Published February 4, 2005

SOCIAL SECURITY What's wrong? Can we fix it? As words change, so does public opinion Proposal comes with more risk, more chance of reward Editorial: Details, details

Graphics The uncertainty Small changes count Weighing consequences

Times poll Is President Bush's Social Security plan now clear? Yes. I now support it Yes. I now am against it No. But I'm willing to hear more No. I still don't see what's broken

To hear AARP tell it, President Bush's plan to add private accounts to Social Security is headed for trouble once the public understands the consequences.

"Large majorities ... agree that Social Security should be protected as a guaranteed benefit, and not privatized," announced AARP, trumpeting an opinion poll released Thursday.

That comes on the heels of a recent GOP-oriented poll that reported that three-quarters of Americans believe, "We have to reform the Social Security system now."

Even the greenest of political novices know that public opinion - as measured by the pollsters - varies according to how the question is asked. Never was that more true than with today's Social Security debate, experts said.

For starters, the country's retirement and disability program is extremely complex. Various reforms call for projecting wages, work habits and stock market returns 75 years into the future.

In addition, Bush has provided only a sketchy outline of how private accounts would affect future retirees. Americans are left with general impressions rather than hardened political positions.

In this atmosphere, just a few words and concepts can sway a poll. Consider "privatization," which apparently is radioactive.

Last month, the Winston Group, a GOP-leaning research firm, was helping Senate Republicans form strategy on Social Security.

When 1,000 registered voters were asked about "allowing workers to invest part of their Social Security funds in personal retirement accounts," 60 percent liked the idea. Asked what they thought of "privatization" of Social Security, only 38 percent agreed.

"It's hard to remember an issue where one word made such a difference and it's just an adjective vs. a noun," said Carroll Daugherty, editor for the Pew Research Center. "Because of the complexity of Social Security, wording is as import as with any issue I can remember."

Other phrasing counts, though less dramatically.

A Fox News poll appeared to find 60 percent support for the president by asking if people "should have the choice to invest privately up to 5 percent of their Social Security contributions."

Five percent doesn't sound like much, but in fact the president's plan would allow workers to invest 4 percent of their entire salary, which is two-thirds of their Social Security contributions.

Many recent polls, including the AARP poll released Thursday, found about 50-55 percent support for private accounts. But that percentage dropped to 44 percent in a Time/SRBI poll and 40 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. The only perceptible difference in questioning was that those two polls also talked about changing Social Security.

You can't have private accounts without change, said Daugherty, "but the only inference you can draw is that suggestion of change is driving that answer down."

Jeffrey Love, AARP's research director, notes that support for private accounts tends to rise when questioners talk of letting workers choose them. Calling the accounts personal accounts rather than private accounts is also worth a few points, Love said.

"We are seeing wide swings with fairly small changes in words," Love said. "The public is not completely engaged in the debate yet. They don't know all the issues that are going on. They are responding to shades of meaning."

Other potent questions involve what is known as Social Security's "guaranteed benefit." That refers to the estimated retirement benefit that individual workers are supposed to get under the current system. Of course, there's nothing guaranteed about it. Actuaries estimate that benefits will drop about 25 percent below this "guaranteed" level in about 40 or 50 years if nothing changes.

Under Bush's proposal workers who divert tax money into private accounts will receive a smaller "guaranteed benefit" than will workers who stay completely within the traditional Social Security system. How much smaller is one of the big unknowns in the Bush plan.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll last month found that only 40 percent of respondents supported private accounts that would "reduce the guaranteed benefits" workers get when they retire.

Bush's plan certainly would do that. But it also assumes that if the stock market does well, workers' total retirement package, including private account money, could well exceed today's "guaranteed benefit." People responding to the question may not have understood that.

AARP, an ardent opponent of private accounts, also focused on their possible consequences. With the administration providing few details, the field is still wide open for AARP to frame questions as they see fit.

Would people favor private accounts if it meant "massive new federal debt?" (68 percent opposed.)

What if "stock market fluctuations" could result in decreased money in retirement? (61 percent opposed.)

Some of the opposition was even stronger in Florida, with an older population.

"Right now, we are talking hypotheticals," Love acknowledged. "We are looking forward to seeing what plans are offered so the debate can take on a little more substance."

[Last modified February 4, 2005, 04:30:50]