'Private' vs. 'Personal'

NYT discussed It's 'Private' vs. 'Personal' in Social Security Debate.... Mr. Bush complained last week that " 'privatization' is a trick word," intended to "scare people." Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, interrupted a news conference to correct a reporter who asked about "personal" accounts. "It's 'privatization,' " Mr. Reid said, adding that "personal accounts" was "the Republican term."

"To most people 'privatization' means you're going to take the program out of the federal government and put it in the hands of private individuals totally," said Representative Jim McCrery, the Louisiana Republican who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. "That's not what I'm proposing, and it's not what the president is proposing. "Accounts are not private in the sense that that individual has complete control over those accounts. He doesn't. His investment choices are very limited. He can't take the money out for any reason other than retirement. And he must annuitize a certain portion of it upon retirement." In short, a frustrated Mr. McCrery said: "They are not private accounts. They are personal accounts."....

The two sides agree that the language struggle is fueled by polls and pollsters, who say public opinion can swing significantly when the word "privatize" is used.

"What it conveys is putting your retirement up to the mercy of private-sector forces that you may or may not have any control over," said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who works for a coalition of groups that oppose Mr. Bush's plan. "It conveys a fundamental change in a program that works."

Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant who has performed extensive work with focus groups on language, said: " 'Private' is exclusive. 'Private' is limiting. 'Private' is something that's not available to all. " 'Personal' is encompassing. It's individual. It's ownership. In the end, you need the combination of 'personal' and 'security.' "

As Shakespeare said "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I don't care whether you call them Private Accounts or Personal Accounts, they are a good idea, and without them 20 to 30 year olds are not going to have Social Security available to them after they have paid into it for years.

Slate is convinced that this is Bush's First Defeat - The president has lost on Social Security. How will he handle it? but he goes on to say But if Bush is shrewd enough to euthanize carve-out accounts while shifting to make solvency his goal, he will leave his Democratic opponents in a quandary. A package of innocuous tax increases and benefit cuts could extend the life of the trust fund out to 75 years in a fairly painless way. Substantively, it would be hard for even the most partisan Democrats to oppose this kind of compromise, which serves their goal of protecting the future of Social Security. But politically, Democrats would be loath to help Bush turn his first major defeat into another political victory.

In my opinion he is just trying to get Bush to drop the idea of Private/Personal accounts, with the hopes the can later take away the political victory he says Bush could have. In my opinion he will accomplish a political victory with Private/Personal accounts. He may have to bundle in the package of innocuous tax increases and benefit cuts Jacob Weisberg is referring to, but I think he will succeed.