Turns of phrase can be meaningful in public policy discussions. In fact, they can make all the difference in public sentiment on an issue.

So, instead of “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights,” we have “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”

And instead of “estate tax,” opponents began using the term “death tax.” Why? Because most people don’t have multi-million-dollar estates — but all of us will die.

In this election season, the phrase that has kept ringing in my ear is from a Barack Obama speech: “We are the change we’ve been waiting for.” What a powerful message for voters in what has been described as a “change” election.

Such turns of phrase are designed to persuade, but they also can help people to understand public policy issues better. For example, Scott Burns [pictured] — the wonderful personal finance writer and co-founder of the Web startup AssetBuilder — has coined a beauty.

In his syndicated column this Sunday, he and co-author Laurence Kotlikoff offer a term to describe the conflict of interest inherent in the work of credit rating agencies like Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s.

The term: Insider rating.

What’s beautiful about it is that it takes a rating system that is arcane to most people and makes a case for what’s wrong with it in two words that even casual investors can understand — because they immediately relate it to “insider trading.” When you hear the term “insider rating,” it immediately sounds like a problem that needs to be fixed.

Which is exactly what Burns and Kotlikoff argue. In fact, they believe a new federal agency may be necessary to ensure securities ratings are fairly administered.

You can read the full column here.

As you might expect, the column has stirred debate. A pundit at Housing Wire has bashed the plan, while the readers at Daily Kos are supportive of the idea.

But stirring debate — sharing words — is how change begins.

[Full disclosure: AssetBuilder is an Idea Grove client.]