Social Security Discussion Corner

• Women
• African American/Black
• Hispanic/Latino
• Intergenerational
• Persons with Disabilities

Reframe the Social Security Debate

As a marketing and public relations professional, I am in reluctant awe as President Bush and his team continue to push for “reform” of Social Security. Aided and abetted by administration officials and party loyalists on cable talk shows, pre-screened “audiences” at speaking events, and conservative columnists and pundits, Bush makes it sound as though individuals are currently being prevented by the federal government from setting up personal investment accounts.
  Huh?
  The administration is using simple, brilliant tactics, reminiscent of their winning 2004 presidential campaign (and the selling of tooth whiteners and HDTVs, No Child Left Behind and Anti Drug messages, among other things). They do it because it works. Here’s their marketing plan on Social Security “reform.”

• Frame the debate (we need personal investment accounts established from our earnings formerly “taken away from us” by the federal government to fund Social Security)
• Use language that speaks to known desires of potential buyers (we want security and comfort in retirement and ability to leave something to our children and grandchildren)
• Articulate what happens if we don’t buy (our children and grandchildren won’t have a decent retirement if they can’t invest in the stock market and “own” their retirement funds from the get-go)
• Imply that current situation is a threat or barrier to the desired outcome (we are forced into making Social Security contributions and that keeps us from investing in the stock market)
• Provide “the answer” to address the threat or barrier you have successfully framed in the minds of individuals (If we privatize Social Security you can have control over your retirement, your estate, your ultimate destiny. Why, my goodness, it will help us transform further into an Ownership Society!)
• Consciously use words that evoke warm, safe feelings (family, security, improve, power) to make the sale.

I read a NY Times article today about a so-called “conversation with ordinary citizens” on Tuesday in which President Bush “offered no new details on a White House proposal to allow workers to divert part of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal investment accounts.” At that event, ordinary citizen Sonya Stone, chief financial officer at a financial consulting firm in Virginia and the former controller of the conservative Heritage Foundation, sat on stage with Bush and 5 other ordinary citizens. She was the perfect spokesperson, identifying herself as the divorced, worried mother of three children. "I would very much like to see the current Social Security system improve,” she said, “with the establishment of personal accounts so that families could harness the power of the capital markets to allow them to build a nest egg over the course of their lifetimes that could be passed on to their families.”

Once again, President Bush and his administration are succeeding in getting the rest of us to play THEIR game. It’s just what happened last summer when we devoted inordinate time and energy debating the accusations and motives of the Swift Boat Veterans and focused on events that happened 30 years ago (instead of focusing on the President’s actual track record in the office he wanted to occupy for a second term).

The real issue here is whether we will continue to define America as a nation that upholds the moral value of loving our neighbors, caring for the vulnerable and weak and downtrodden, accomplishing together what we cannot accomplish alone. I agree that Social Security needs work. But I do not agree that Bush has the answer. His proposed solution – an Ownership Society -- does NOT reflect my moral values.