"You can buy a lot of air time" with one billion...Pete Peterson on his media group.

[madfloridian]

Peterson has formed his own media group, and he intends to use it to get his views across on "reforming" Social Security.

Here are some words of Peterson from 2008 in the NYT:

Spending a billion to restore fiscal sanity

Mr. Peterson’s foundation is planning an active Internet strategy, tapping bloggers and social networks to reach young voters, who typically pay little heed to far-off fiscal obligations. In early 2009, as the new president takes office, the foundation will try to draw attention with programming on public television, and possibly television advertisements and infomercials.

The effort resembles those of public policy advocacy groups, with a big exception: the money Mr. Peterson has put behind it. After decades in and around public life, he knows that is his only chance to make an impact.

“You can buy a lot of airtime” with $1 billion, Mr. Peterson said. “People are going to hear from us.”

Yes, you can buy a lot of airtime.

Many wonder why President Obama's new fiscal commission chaired by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles would be working so closely with and using so many resources provided by Peterson. Seems like money and power will be speaking.

Enormous unaccountable authority

Q. Why is the Commission apparently working so closely with billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who served in the Nixon administration and who has a clear ideological agenda?

Q. Mr. Peterson has been on a decades-long crusade against Social Security. The day after the first meeting of the commission, which focused heavily on the need to cut Social Security, the co-chairs and two other members of the commission participated in a Peterson event that reinforced the same message. A Peterson-funded foundation is supplying commission staff. And Peterson’s foundation is funding America Speaks to develop a series of high-profile town halls across the country to host “a national discussion to find common ground on tough choices about our federal budget.”

Here is more about Peterson's group.

From The Nation:

Looting Social Security

He's baaack--the Wall Street billionaire who wants to loot Social Security. This time, Pete Peterson has invented his own "news network" to promote his right-wing rants about shrinking the only retirement security system available to millions of working people. Peterson styles himself as a patriot saving the nation from fiscal insolvency and has committed $1 billion to that cause (a chunk of the wealth he accumulated at Blackstone Group, the notorious corporate-takeover firm). His efforts might be dismissed as ludicrous--except money does talk in Washington, and Peterson is now buying Washington reporters to spread his dire warnings.

The retired mogul has created a digital news agency he dubs "The Fiscal Times" and hired eight seasoned reporters to do the work there. "An impressive group of veteran journalists," Peterson calls them. I hope they have shaken a lot of money out of this rich geezer. Because I predict doing hack work for him will seriously soil their reputations for objectivity and independence.

With his great wealth, Peterson could have also bought a newspaper to publish his dispatches, but he did better than that. He hooked up with the Washington Post, which has agreed to "jointly produce content focusing on the budget and fiscal issues." (This media scandal was first uncovered by economist Dean Baker.) The newspaper is thus compromising its own integrity. It's like buying political propaganda from a Washington lobbyist, then printing it in the news columns as if it was just another news story. Shame on the Post, my old newspaper. I predict a big stink like the one that greeted the Post when its publisher decided to hold pay-for-access "salons" for corporate biggies.

Well, something interesting. It seems that Peterson's Fiscal Times is not too happy with Alan Simpson's recent comments to a blogger.

Here are part of Simpson's words, giving away their plan so to speak.

SIMPSON (regarding Social Security): It'll go broke in 2037.


LAWSON: What do you mean by 'broke'? Do you mean the surplus will go out and then it will only be able to pay 75% of its benefits?

SIMPSON: Just listen to me instead of babbling ...

Simpson then goes on to affirm Lawson's statement (without apology, of course.) But he resumes the fearmongering a minute later:

SIMPSON: ... There is not enough in the system by the month ... to pay out what comes in. In other words there is more going out than coming in. That happened 3 or 4 weeks ago.

And, a few minutes later:

LAWSON: ... Social Security is separate, though, from the general budget, right? It's totally in the green.


SIMPSON: But it wasn't. Just four weeks ago, there wasn't as much coming in as going out.

LAWSON: Except you're not calculating the interest paid on the bonds, because, if you do include that, it's still in the green this year.

SIMPSON: Well you can go through all the sophistry of babbling that you want to.

LAWSON: It's not sophistry. It's just what the SSA says. So I'm just going on the numbers.

Simpson had a couple of other outrageous comments:

SIMPSON: Whatever, whatever. You pick your crap and I'll pick the real stuff. It has to do with the highway system, it was to run America. And those are IOUs in there. And now there is not enough coming in every month ...

..."SIMPSON: Let me say things in a way so your fans will understand this, so you can go and be a hero. There is not enough in the system ... So, what do they do? They go to that trust fund and say, 'We need the IOUs out of it.' And they say, 'You can have them, but you have to pay for them' ...

Now here's what the Fiscal Times, Peterson's media website, has to say about Simpson.

Simpson’s Comments Undermine Commission Efforts

Republican former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming has served on a number of bipartisan commissions and has frequently spoken about the need to fix the federal government's long-term budget problems. That's why President Obama chose Simpson to be co-chairman of his deficit reduction commission.

But at 78, the irascible Simpson is also known for pithy and colorful language, which was on vivid display last week in a video interview with a representative of Social Security Works, a liberal group opposed to cuts in benefits. Simpson was also condescending and derisive--and wildly wrong about important parts of the Social Security system's past.

Most of all, he gave no hint that he understood that, for the commission's proposals to be adopted, advocacy groups will have to be persuaded that the package is necessary and fair--whether the groups' concerns are about entitlements, taxes or other issues. In short, what Simpson did was to undermine the already slim chances of politicians agreeing on a way to put the government on a sustainable long-term budget policy path.

Sounds like they don't want us to get all upset with them....that they have to "persuade" advocacy groups into seeing things their way.

It's hard to understand why these two, Simpson and Peterson, are so involved in a commission that will determine the fate of Social Security. I hear we can criticize policy and issues here, and in this case I most certainly do criticize.

Yes, Mr. Peterson is right. One billion can buy a heck of a lot of airtime. And we have few resources with which to fight back.

[Dawson Leery]

1. Remove the FICA cap but cap benefits at $150,000 or so.

Place the money in a 'lockbox'. That is all that is needed. There is no imminent crisis.

[madfloridian]

2. You know those Universal Savings Accounts? Heading there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/your-money/07money.html

Won't save Social Security, but will allow more profit for Wall Street.

[JDPriestly]

7. The idea of Universal Savings Accounts will be difficult to sell

I figure right now, for every $6500 a senior has saved, he or she might have received something like 7.5 cents. Yes $ .075. Seven and one-half cents. That's about 75 cents for every $65,000 a senior has saved.

Anyone over 65 who is betting on the stock market needs to have his or her head examined. It's just too risky.

Unless you have millions in savings, you cannot live off the interest or dividends or earnings. That is a pipe dream.

Peterson is wasting his money.

[madfloridian]

11. Not a good idea, I agree. But I am not sure they even plan on "selling it"

I wonder if congress can or will stand up if such is recommended by the commission.

I remember how hard we fought Bush when he called them "private savings accounts" or "personal savings accounts."

The name has changed through the years, but the goal is the same. More profit.

[Dawson Leery]

20. I agree. We need to get the congress to stop this.

[HillbillyBob]

12. These a holes act like we all make enough to put some away

When you have a week left before the next payday and little food you are not making enough to save anything.
Our pickup has been sitting since November because we are just scraping by, not to mention any of the other things that need to be replaced or repaired. We have been keeping it to small projects and when an appliance does die we have to scrimp to replace it. Like the washer, its a 7 mile hike to town to do laundry other wise.

I guess they think their gated communities will keep them safe from a starving desperate mob?

[madfloridian]

13. The fiscal committee co-chair thinks we live in gated communities...

"“These old cats 70 and 80 years old who are not affected in one whiff. People who live in gated communities and drive their Lexus to the Perkins restaurant to get the AARP discount. This is madness.”

Going to the dogs

He also said:

"Simpson: And it's all BS. I don't have to take that nonsense. Look at my record. No one can say I want higher taxes. You're entitled to be called a fool, idiot, bonehead, slob, screwball. But an attack unanswered is an attack believed. I never lost an election because even though I was called everything, I never let them distort who I was. It's the same with this tax thing—I'm going to shove it right up their nostrils. Try this: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will use up all the taxes—revenue—the government takes in this year. And to do the rest of governing we'll have to borrow, including for massive things like defense, homeland security, education. Those will be paid for by shaking a tin cup in front of the world. And China will probably be throwing more chips in the tin cup than any other country, just waiting patiently for us to expire under the debt. The people who distort the commission and try to scare people into doing nothing, let's say they win the day, and we don't do anything to try to bring down this debt. Well, great. They've got grandchildren, too, and in 40 years they'll be sucking canal water and picking grit with the chickens."

And he is co-chair in charge of saving Social Security?

This is not okay. Why was he appointed to lead such a vital task?

[Hannah Bell]

8. that's not needed either.

[madfloridian]

3. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid Peterson's fav targets at Fiscal Times.

From Greider at The Nation:

"So why do the TFT reporters (Elaine Povich and Eric Pianin) zero in on old folks and Social Security or entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid? Because those are Pete Peterson's favorite targets. He has flogged Social Security as a blight on our future for at least twenty years. He is a nut on the subject. His "facts" are wildly distorted or simply not true. Never mind, the establishment press portrays him as a disinterested statesman.

This crusade is dangerous for the people because the "respectables" in governing circles and both parties embrace the same reactionary logic. Does government have money problems? Don't restore the progressive income tax on the wealthy or capital, don't cut away some of the corporate boodle in the federal budget--that politics is too difficult. Instead, let's whack Social Security while folks aren't watching."

http://www.thenation.com/article/looting-social-security-part-2

[tsuki]

9. Peter G. Peterson, of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, will pledge

one billion dollars of his ill-gotten Wall Street acquisitions profits to destroy Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but will not pay one cent more in taxes without screaming like a scalded fat cat.

That makes no sense to me. His tax burden would be far less than the one billion he is spending to destroy our social safety net.

[lib2DaBone]

4. K/R Thanks for post. Didn't They Put Bernie Madoff In Jail for the very Same Thing?

Alan Simpson openly admits.. they took out $2 1/2 Trillion, and put in IOU's. Now they can't pay it back. So we must "sacrifice".

I guess it's OK as long as you are a Republican or a Goldman Sachs Banker... laws do not apply.

[madfloridian]

5. Surprised to see Peterson going after Simpson like that.

I guess they figured he crossed the line. They did not want him to offend those who advocate to leave Soc. Sec. alone.

He is offensive.

[Overseas]

6. K&R to highlight the can of worms exalted by right wing activists on our Supreme Court. //nt

[madfloridian]

10. Shocking to see Peterson and Simpson and others on the panel...

in charge of "fixing" Social Security. It's rather chilling to me. A couple seem ok, but even Durbin warned us "bleeding heart liberals" what was coming. :shrug:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)

David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)

Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)

Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.)

Andrew Stern, former President, Service Employees International Union

[Overseas]

22. I agree. Too many blue dogs. And Judd Gregg is hideous.

Why appoint a traitor like Gregg to anything after all the things he said and did to hurt the President?

And how dare they even convene this thing when they're still running such expensive wars asking for 33 Billion in supplemental spending?

After your reporting on all the attacks on public education, privatizing instead of making our public institutions stronger, this panel really frightens me.

I've been in shock for a while now.

Because you had the go ahead of the reduced payouts to doctors that take Medicare too.

Why do we have Democrats doing their darndest to hurt the majority of US citizens in favor of the rich keeping their private wealth?

We really did vote for an end to the Republican Plutocracy, not more of the same.

[bvar22]

14. K&R...again, great post, madfloridian

Something evil this way comes,
and it is masquerading as "Centrist" Democrats.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."---Paul Wellstone

[madfloridian]

15. In this area, like education, the moneyed forces have the power.

And we have none.

[WCGreen]

16. That is so unfortunate for us "small" people...

slash the tax rate for the wealthiest, let people pass their wealth on to their heir relatively tax free and you have a royal society that is just as corrupt and moribund as the court of King Louis the 14th.

You know what really bothers me is that the "trust" fund was raided to pay for military awash in corruption, tax cuts for the wealthy and give aways to the largest corporations in the world.

And now, after decades of complicity with the main stream media, Social Security is viewed as just another broken government program so people have lost faith in the program.

We are truly fucked...

[librechik]

21. they don't need people at all to run their utopian ideal

that's why they're so unconcerned about jobs, outsourcing and healthcare. They are creating an empire which will run on ideology alone.

Yes, to answer your unspoken question, they are insane. Many will suffer because of them. They will never realize it.

[bvar22]

17. My wife and I realized this after the 2004 election.

In 2006, we moved to The Woods, got some chickens and HoneyBees, and planted a BIG garden.


I've always read your posts, and while the subject matter is usually troubling (to put it mildly), your collection of facts, and presentation has been always been spot on!

:patriot:

[laughingliberal]

18. It's very discouraging. Is there even 1 true liberal on this commission? nt

[MrScorpio]

19. Of Course, you know this means war?

Class War!