Critics See Social Security Warnings as Scare Tactics

As President Bush continues an all-out political campaign to restructure Social Security, the government agency that administers the program is playing a central role in dispensing information about its long-term financial problems and possible solutions.

The Social Security Administration says it is sticking to the facts. But some critics accuse the agency of abandoning its traditionally neutral role in policy debates and becoming a player in a highly politicized public relations campaign orchestrated by the White House.

“They very much are pushing it, trying to scare people into thinking there’s a crisis,” said Witold Skwierczynski, president of the Social Security Council of the American Federation of Government Employees. “It’s propaganda.”

In letters, brochures, online messages and telephone recordings, the Social Security Administration is warning Americans that the system’s trust fund is expected to run out of money by 2042 unless steps are taken soon to overhaul the program.

Although the agency stops short of endorsing a specific restructuring proposal, it cites the findings of a commission that recommended allowing younger workers to create personal investment accounts, a proposal favored by the president.

One internal document obtained by The Times encourages the agency’s public affairs specialists to spread the word that “Social Security reform is a presidential priority” and that personal accounts are an essential element of his approach.

Another says agency officials should “insert solvency messages in all Social Security publications” and “look for nontraditional locations to educate people about the current Social Security system, such as outreach events at farmers markets, big-box retail stores, etc.”

The agency’s role is being questioned as the Bush administration comes under fire on other fronts for using aggressive tactics to influence public opinion on key issues. The Education Department confirmed recently that it paid commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote its No Child Left Behind education initiative.

Social Security Administration officials say they have limited their communications to factual messages about the system’s financial outlook and neutral descriptions of various options for fixing it, a practice that began during the Clinton administration.

“Our role really hasn’t changed,” SSA spokesman Mark Lassiter said. “To the extent our folks are involved, it’s typically to educate the public about how our program currently works and to talk about the challenges facing the program. But we’ve been doing that for several years.”

But some Social Security employees, members of Congress and independent analysts have expressed concern about the language used to describe the system’s long-term fiscal imbalance and the linkage to the kind of restructuring plan backed by the White House.

Although they acknowledge that some of the solvency messages predate the current administration, the critics say the information campaign appears to have intensified since Bush appointed several prominent conservatives to high-level positions in the agency.

They cite as evidence an event held last week by the White House at which Bush engaged in a talk-show-style conversation with people who supported his call for private accounts. Joining the president on stage was Andrew G. Biggs, who advocated private accounts as an analyst at the conservative Cato Institute before Bush appointed him to the position of SSA associate commissioner for retirement policy.

Bush, as one of the legacies of his presidency, is promoting what he terms the “ownership society.” The private Social Security accounts are seen as part of this initiative.

Some Social Security authorities say they believe the agency has been careful to confine its communications to factual recitations of the financial forecasts made by the system’s trustees, and balanced descriptions of restructuring proposals, including those made by the president’s commission.

“I don’t think it’s inappropriate for Social Security Administration political officials to discuss privatization or to appear with the president,” said Kenneth Apfel, who served as Social Security commissioner during the Clinton administration. “It’s a very delicate balance, but I don’t think they’ve gone over the line.”

But some administration critics argue that the continuing drumbeat of dire warnings about the system’s long-term financial shortfall has convinced many Americans they are in danger of losing their traditional benefits entirely and that private accounts are the only alternative.

“It’s worked,” said Dana Duggins, an employee in SSA’s Redding, Calif., field office and a vice president of the union representing Social Security employees. “I’ve had friends, neighbors, colleagues tell me the same thing.... They’ve scared the public into believing there’s a crisis and that Social Security is not going to be there for the future. They’ve capitalized on our integrity with the American public.”

The critics note that even if nothing were done to address Social Security’s financial squeeze before the trust fund ran dry, payroll tax collections would still be sufficient to cover an estimated 73% of promised benefits. And private accounts by themselves would do little to close the financing gap.

The solvency messages take several forms. One prerecorded advisory awaits people who call Social Security’s 1-800 public assistance line.

“Thanks for holding,” a male voice intones. “ ... Did you know the 76-million-strong baby boom generation will begin to retire in about 10 years? When that happens, changes will need to be made to Social Security, changes to make sure there’s enough money to continue paying full benefits.”

A more explicit warning accompanies the annual statement of benefits sent to all wage earners. “Unless action is taken soon,” it says, “ ... in just 14 years we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2042 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted.”

A Q&A; on Social Security’s Internet site is more hyperbolic, critics said. “Social Security is not sustainable over the long term at present benefit and tax rates without large infusions of additional revenue.... There will be a massive and growing shortfall over the 75-year period.”

The website cites Bush’s six “guiding principles” for restructuring the program, including creating “individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts to augment Social Security.”

The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, a coalition of groups including the AARP, has asked the Social Security Administration to tone down the language in the Internet Q&A; and in a printed brochure called “The Future of Social Security.”

“Referring to Social Security as unsustainable is inappropriate and implies that the current Social Security system cannot be fixed,” the council said in a letter to SSA Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart. “Sustainability is a matter of political will.”

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has raised similar objections to the prerecorded message heard by callers to Social Security’s 1-800 number [(800) 772-1213]. “It’s basically scaring seniors when they call up,” said Lautenberg Press Secretary Alex Formuzis.

Still, it appears at least some Social Security employees are not taking part in the campaign.

“I never heard of that,” a Social Security representative told a reporter who called to inquire about the president’s warning that the system was headed toward bankruptcy. “He doesn’t run the program,” the representative said. “Or the agency.”