Is the public catching up to Social Security spin?

In a Washington Post poll last week, the brouhaha about “private” versus “personal” accounts seemed not to matter:

Americans seem not to change their views when the president’s plan is characterized as a “private” rather than a “personal” investment account — a change from earlier studies, in which the use of “private accounts” or “privatization” drove down support. Either way, a modest majority favored the proposal, the survey found.

But another semantic distinction – between cuts and reductions in guaranteed benefits – proved important:

Far more sensitive was the characterization of the way a restructuring would include a provision to recalculate initial benefits for retirees. Opposition rose from 68 percent when this change was characterized as “reducing the rate of growth in benefits” to 86 percent when described as “cutting guaranteed benefits.” Both phrases accurately describe what would happen.

And the public did pretty well on factual questions, with large majorities knowing that private accounts wouldn’t solve Social Security’s problems and that they would only apply to future retirees. Only 37% knew about the large transition costs that would have to be paid, but given that the debate is still in its early stages, the poll as a whole has to be taken as an encouraging sign.