On the last day of 2009, the Washington Post ran an article titled “Support grows for tackling nation’s debt.” Its premise was that Congress was poised to impanel a budget deficit commission to examine the nation’s long-term debt and provide recommendations, citing analysis from the Concord Coalition and the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform. The byline included the words “The Fiscal Times,” and at the bottom of the article appeared this disclaimer:
This article was produced by the Fiscal Times, an independent digital news publication reporting on fiscal, budgetary, health-care and international economics issues. Fiscal Times staff writer Adam Graham-Silverman contributed to this report.
Nowhere in that brief does it mention that the Fiscal Times is headed by Pete Peterson, the billionaire hedge fund manager and former Nixon Commerce Secretary who has been bankrolling a decades-long campaign to slash safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare (Incidentally, Peterson also funds both the Concord Coalition and the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform, the think tanks cited in the article). The Fiscal Times is his latest venture, which will produce articles about fiscal issues and essentially lease them to newspapers. The Washington Post recently entered into a content sharing agreement to run Fiscal Times stories on their news page. So a man dedicated to fraying the nation’s social safety net now has real estate on one of the nation’s most prominent newspapers, and if this initial story is any indication, will use it to push a deficit-mania agenda as a means to subvert legislative procedure and create momentum for major cutbacks. It’s essentially a buyout of a national news section.
Dozens of prominent economists have now written a letter to the Washington Post’s ombudsman, protesting the use of Fiscal Times stories in the news section and calling for an end to the content sharing agreement. The effort has been spearheaded by Nancy Altman, author of the book The Battle for Social Security, who has spent her career working on economic security issues. She drafted the letter, which you can find below. In an interview with FDL News, Altman explained her problems with the Washington Post using a Pete Peterson-funded outlet as a content generator.
“What immediately comes to mind is the scandal a few years back when I recall that it came to light that the Bush administration was circulating stories and video that were being run by news outlets as straight news stories,” Altman said. “Obviously, those issuing press releases love for their words to be printed unchanged. The Fiscal Times is not an independent news source, but an entity funded by Peterson, a man with a clear point of view and an agenda.”
The letter is part of a larger effort to rebut the Peterson Foundation’s money and influence with pushback from multiple angles. As the letter notes, over 40 organizations, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Common Cause, NAACP, National Organization for Women and SEIU, have objected to the deficit commission which the Fiscal Times article and Peterson’s organizations in general have promoted. The commission would consist of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans and would have its recommendations automatically acted upon by Congress with an up-or-down vote, without the ability to amend them. The Conrad-Gregg Commission, devised by the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, would make that up-or-down vote a super-majority in both the House and the Senate, which would actually make it harder to pass the recommendations than regular legislation. However, it would clearly outsource the functions of the legislative branch to an unelected committee, and critics fear that the Peterson noise machine would lead to major entitlement cutbacks rather than a balanced way of dealing with long-term deficits.
“I have heard, but have no idea if it is accurate, that the Peterson forces plan to spend $50 million to influence the vote on the Conrad-Gregg commission proposal, scheduled, I understand, for a vote on January 20,” said Altman, echoing a point made in the Fiscal Times article about an upcoming amendment for the commission that would be tacked on to the next vote raising the nation’s debt limit.
“My colleagues and I are engaged in a David and Goliath battle. We are up against a billionaire who made a fortune as a hedge fund manager, and is determined to use his fortune to influence public policy,” she added. “Though we do not have billions of dollars like the Peterson-Goliath on the other side, what we have is that our position is right.”
Economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research added in Politico’s Arena today, “Given Peterson’s longstanding agenda, this is like the American Rifle Association putting out the ‘Firearms Gazette’ or the Tobacco Industry publishing ‘Smoking Today.’ Turning over sections of the newspaper to advocacy organizations like the Peter G. Peterson Foundation is apparently the Post’s latest desperate effort to stave off financial collapse.”
The Fiscal Times has hired board members such as Drew Altman of the Kaiser Family Foundation, Jodie Allen from the Pew Research Center and Robert Reischauer of the Urban Institute. A sample of some of their journalists, including former NYU journalism professor and health care blogger Merrill Goozner, can be found at their PR release.
Here is the letter to the Washington Post:
Ombudsman
Washington Post
Washington, D.C.Dear Mr. Alexander:
We strongly protest the printing in the Washington Post of an article taken verbatim from an extremely biased source. The article, “Support grows for tackling nation’s debt” (page A-10, 12/31/09) appears to be a straightforward, objective news story, only opaquely revealing that the piece was “produced by the Fiscal Times.” Nowhere is it disclosed that the Fiscal Times is funded by an individual, Peter G. Peterson, who has spent the last thirty years in a crusade to undermine Social Security. Shame on the Post for presenting this propaganda as journalism.
Consistent with Mr. Peterson’s bias, the story glowingly reports increasing support for a deficit reduction commission, and fails ever to mention that over forty national organizations, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Common Cause, NAACP, National Organization for Women, SEIU, to name just a few, have been outspoken in their opposition to the proposal. Indeed, most readers would have little idea from this story that there was any opposition whatsoever to the proposed commission.
Even worse, the Post has apparently entered into a partnership with the Fiscal Times and plans to publish other articles from that source. We respectfully urge the Post to rescind the partnership. The Post should maintain its independence, reserve opinion pieces for the op-ed page, and not allow itself to be a propaganda arm for ideologues who use fiscal distress as a stalking horse to destroy social insurance.
Please note that we are submitting this letter to the Post’s editors for publication. Notwithstanding that, we respectfully request that you respond to us about this very serious matter. In that regard, we have provided the contact information for the first signatory at the end of the email. As you can see, the response among Social Security experts was swift and strong, notwithstanding that the piece appeared on New Year’s Eve. In the event that we receive more signatories over the weekend, as we expect we will, we will forward the additional names to you on Monday.
Nancy J. Altman, author, The Battle for Social Security (John Wiley & Sons)
Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
Robert H. Binstock, Professor of Aging, Health, and Society, Case Western Reserve University
Barbara Burt, Executive Director, Frances Perkins Center
Dale Coberly, co-author of the Northwest Plan to restore Social Security to balance
Nancy Dapper, Executive Director, Western & Central WA Chapter, Alzheimer’s Association
Stephen Gorin, Professor, Plymouth State University, Plymouth, NH
Roger Hickey, Co-Director, America’s Future
Eric Kingson, Professor, Syracuse University School of Social Work
Robert Kuttner, Founding Co-Editor, American Prospect
Theodore Marmor, Professor Emeritus, Yale University
Gerald A. McIntyre, Directing Attorney, National Senior Citizens Law Center
Maya Rockeymoore, President, Global Policy Solutions





54 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Awesome wrapup, David. Glad to see the pushback reported here.
It is as if Pete Peterson read the Powell Report and decided it meant he needed to do all those things himself.
Thanks for this David; still amazes me that anyone thinks that the WaPo and NYTimes are anything but mouthpieces for the government.
How dare they!
What do they think they are?
A capitalist enterprise?!
Excellent point.
This shows the failings of capitalism in some ventures. News is one. Health care is another.
Speaking of WaPoo ombudsmen…
RIP-Deborah Howell…!
nice one david. things are opaque enough with the post making a deal to let PP fog up the windshield at the wapo with a bogus cover news cooperative.
shame shame.
She’s down there burning with Pumpkinhead as we speak.
Under this administration, the Social Security “fix” is in.
That would be the faux news dinner table.
I’m looking forward to a really large neocon table down there.
Personally, I believe there’s a whole inner ring of Dante’s Hell that has PNAC written all over it…! ;-)
I posted this last night about Blackstone and Goldman creating the largest insurance company in the country-they set it up last July,09.
Sourcewatch and Wiki have some very extensive info on Peterson,btw.
Blackstone, Goldman Sachs Back New Insurance Agency (Update1 …Jul 7, 2009 … [bn:WBTKR=BX:US] Blackstone Group LP [], Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Credit Suisse Group AG are backing a new US firm marketing insurance …
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=as… – Similar
To avoid collapse, AIG taps Blackstone (The Deal Magazine)Sep 26, 2008 … AIG turned to Blackstone as it struggled to survive. … When insurance giant American International Group Inc. scrambled … the two companies goes back to Blackstone’s launch in 1985. … He declines to go into what those issues were, saying, “We can’t talk about a patient when it’s still on the …
http://www.thedeal.com/…/aig-links-arms-with-blackstone-in-its-efforts-to-avoid-collapse.php – Cached – Similar
NOTE: Blackstone is Pete Peterson’s equity firm. You guys all remember him,right?
The neocon table is a myth. In actuality the neocons are servers for the tables reserved for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, and Pol Pot.
I never read Dante. Is that the worst part? (Thinking of hell’s division into better & worse parts is kinda like thinking about the various orders of magnitude of infinity.)
That has a certain kind of appropriateness associated with it.
This just blows my mind. All of it. The selling WaPo real estate, the Commission Conrad/Gregg devised, and the people on the board of the Fiscal Times. Why would a billionaire care about people getting social security? None of this makes any sense to me. What congressman would dare vote against social security?
Difi/Conrad/Gregg might just be the extent of it.
The worst part is at the bottom, where everything is frozen solid (that’s where the major traitors, like Judas, end up). At the top it’s not quite so bad, but everyone is sorted into places according to whatever sin put them there.
Gee, in my R.C. days, there was only hell, purgatory, and limbo (for babies who died before being baptized. The funny infallible guy in the white hat in Rome decided that one wouldn’t help prostelitizing in Africa, where there aren’t enough priests to baptize all the lil uns, so his infallible highness infallibly revoked the infallible principle of limbo.)
Sounds like Dante was a lot more imaginative than the R.C.s.
But, per your description, wouldn’t something close to the bottom be the solution for the polar bear? Are there nonhuman animals in Dante’s hell?
These are oligarchs that want to preserve their inherited wealth without taxation. We’ve managed to elect enough of them to the Senate that they’ve reached critical mass. It’s not that they resent people getting Social Security, or Medicare or Medicaid — it’s just that they resent the hell out of taxes on their huge wealth. Any taxes, in their view, are confiscation and punishment of “achievers” which is how they view themselves.
They know that, like Ben Bernanke career-endingly said at his hearing last month, “Social Security and Medicare are where the money is.” And they are damn determined to end these programs that relentlessly pick their pockets and the pockets of their friends.
Yep. So obvious I can no longer type it, so thank you for doing the grunt work. Can’t type it often enough.
I do not know who you are to judge, but I know tacky when I see it.
But they get social security checks and medicare too.
Is the WaPo aware of THIS?
The Blackstone Group has ties to American International Group, Inc. (AIG) and Kissinger Associates, Inc./Henry Kissinger. According to the Blackstone website, AIG acquired a 7% non-voting interest in the company in 1998 for $150 million “and committed to invest $1.2 billion in future Blackstone-sponsored funds”.
“Blackstone has developed strategic alliances with some of the largest and most sophisticated international financial institutions. In addition to AIG, they include Kissinger Associates, the website states. [1]
The company’s Blackstone Alternative Asset Management unit handles $1 billion in hedge funds for pension giant CalPERS.
In December 2001, The Blackstone Group was appointed as Enron’s principal financial advisor with regard to its financial restructuring.[3] The company also advised Enron on “the Sale of its North American Power and Gas Trading Business to UBS”. [4]
Sourcewatch
Wow. So the news pages will now mirror the Op-Ed pages? Joy.
Right.
And I can’t recall if you already linked/commented before on this, but Digby’s ears caught this before the inauguration on January 11th: The Grand Bargain
edit: Specifically, Read Update II…
Assigning someone to the utterly ludicrous idea of hell and damnation is tacky?
What’s tacky is scaring the shit out of millions of children with the vicious threats of burning them forever. Nightmares and worse of made of this.
Hell and damnation deserve to be ridiculed by whatever means are handy.
Social Security checks would last about a Washington second with these types.
Not even a New York minute…? Forget about a Friedman Unit then…! ;-)
I know that. It’s just that I know multimillionaires do cash those checks and use medicare. They may go to doctors who accept medicare as partial payment, but they use the government $ too.
I guess they’re pissed off because their 7% is larger than a middle class person’s 7% is.
Did I not watch Bill Moyers about 3 or 4 years back have an interview with Peterson in which Ol’ Pete excoriated the fiscal situation in which Bush II and Co. had us? Yea, verily, I do know it to be so.
So what should we make of this guy? I really do not know. He does not seem to restrict his criticism to Obama and Dems by any means. I have not had time to keep up with his history since then, other than a quick check with The Carlyle Group right after that to learn of his affiliation with them, which sent a chill through me. Carlyle is never a good sign. But I do clearly recall him talking about the debt being run up and China and so forth and the Bush administration seemed to be the target.
Is he clearly a GOP guy or is he a fiscal conservative or some such thing and not willing to align with either party? Am interested in any input on him.
Nostalgia for the daze when SS was the third rail of politics. Now the third rail is war.
And destroying it just as the post-war baby boom retires. Somehow appropriate, although they’ll be marginalized by being grandfathered.
More generally, has anyone noticed how completely castrated the post-war-baby-boom generation is? Only one prez and not a lot of other noteworthies to their credit. (I’m at the leading edge, so this is also self-criticism.)
The thing that bothers me the most is that social security is NOT an entitlement. Didn’t we have to pay into it?
Peterson is a johnny-one-note. Nothing more profound than that. And, like a stopped clock, he is occassionally right.
I had read that the Washington Post was going to outsource its new coverage. I would guess the deal with Peterson is part of this. It is a question of their business model, much like what they did with Newsweek. They want to create a Village paper for Villagers only. The rest of us see this as openly embracing their propagandistic id, but who are we besides realistic?
Emptywheel is upstairs!
It All Depends on Your Definition of Failure
Um, no. We paid for our parents and grandparents. The younguns would have to pay for us.
SS is not a saving plan.
Hugh, I wanted to mention on the Book Salon thread that you obviously got to them as evidenced by their attack on you. You should be proud, and as usual, handled yourself well. I tried to defend you obliquely but my comments were obscure enough not to threaten, so they ignored me.
Next you’ll suggest AIG has been a CIA front all along!
The Secret (Insurance) Agent Men
Thanks, eCahn, there was just something false about it all. A kind of “we’re not elitist but your thoughts don’t count until someone important said them.” Or a rehash of an old, arcane ideological squabble between a handful of parties that meant nothing to most of us.
The oligarchs don’t want to eliminate SS ,they want to own it .It’s not about shrinking government ,but instead, placing claims on taxpayer and consumer wealth via privatization.There is nothing closer to a risk-free profit than one guaranteed through state-power coercion ,as with the individual mandate.
Teabagger leader Dick Armey claims not to be in Medicare; for all of them, their Social Security income is so miniscule as to not matter. Their annual take barely pays a day’s income taxes.
Actually, their 7% is just the same as a middle class person’s 7%, since there’s a cap on taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Only a little more than $100k of income is taxed, iirc. The rest of their vast income is tax free for purposes of Social Security.
I’m pretty sure the cap is only on Social Security.
I’m very sure that Medicare is still paid past the Social Security cap, I’m just not as sure as I used to be that it’s unlimited, but my old memeory insists it is.
In other words, the FICA (sometimes called) includes SS & Medicare. SS is capped at, as you said, somewhere around 100K, but the Medicare part continues past that (for both employer and employee).
I wish i could be more specific. My major in college was accounting, and I worked for (and owned) accounting practices, which means I really should know more than I do remember.
Hugh I really liked your responses in that BookSalon thread. I just now took the time to read the thread, and I thought you made your point well and in a well mannered way. Nice job.
And I do hope you’re right about ideas being judged on their own. It would be nice to think that even I could come up with something sometime that catches on, despite the fact I’m a nobody. After all, a blind dog….. *g*
Anyway, just wanted to say well done.
The Wikipedia entry for Pete Peterson provides some good info-Sourcewatch, too.
Of especial note is his alignment,for years, with the Rockefellers.
TBogg is upstairs!
A hero ain’t nothing but a burnt weiner
Thank God we have Barack Obama in the White House in these dire times. He’ll stop them.
Peterson is a money-worshipper. Pure and simple. He has NO other values or personal goals. In his view, the sole role of government is to make it safe for him to accumulate more money than anyone else. He has already screwed uncounted investors and companies with his hedge fund bets, and now he is going after everyone else who does not play in his gym. Anyone who thinks he is retired from ANYthing is extremely obtuse. He’s still in the old game – just moved it all offshore – and now he is also moving into a new game. Money is his god. If you don’t believe in his brand of greed you are worthless heathen, and you should starve in poverty.
If you personally know people like him, as I do, you know what I say is true.
WTF, David, you buried the fucking lede:
Pete Peterson is a well-connected billionaire dedicated to wiping out deficits and the entitlements like Social Security and Medicare that he believes cause them. Robert Rubin’s Hamilton Project, part of the Brookings Institution, is one of Pete Peterson’s pet projects. Obama was a featured speaker at its founding, and in early Obama “gave a node to legislation that would” set up a commission to make nearly binding recommendations to implement Peterson’s agenda.
Per the Wikipedia:
Per Dean Baker (12/31/09):
Per Jane Hamsher (2/18/09):
From David’s article it is clear that Peterson’s fiendish iniative for “a specially empowered ‘panel’” has now been unscrapped!
Peterson has been on this mission for over 20 years.The usual scheme :Make draconian cuts in the name of fiscal austerity , then curse the inevitable dysfunctional service as bureaucratic incompetency ,then in a climate of fear, make a case that only market discipline via privatization can save the program if everyone is willing to make sacrifices.Those sacrifices ensure profit maximization .
read #12
The new “datamining” is in electronic medical records.
We also paid ahead for ourselves starting in 1983. They doubled FICA that year. We’ve been paying double ever since. That’s where Bush got the money for his tax cuts; $2 Trillion dollars in Special U.S. Bonds.
The same kind of below-the-radar media purchase is happening today at the Philly Inquirer – they sold content to the Kaiser Health group to lobby against healthcare reform.
Here is the Kaiser-written content, in, of all places, the Inky’s Health section:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/20100104_Health-care_have-nots.html
Below is my exchange with the editor:
Subject: Infomercials in the Inquirer?
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 4:02 PM
> To: letters – inq
> Cc: Marimow, Bill; Leary, Mike; Jackson, Harold
> Subject: Infomercials in the Inquirer?
>
> Sirs:
>
> I strenuously object to the placement of the opinion piece titled “Health-care have-nots” within any section of the paper that is supposedly devoted to objective journalism. That is an opinion piece with a paper-thin veneer of reporting, provided to you by an adjunct of a major health care provider with a financial interest in the outcome of the healthcare reform debate. (Although they may assert their independence, sayin’ doesn’t make it so. LOOK at the founders, the board members, the audit committee members, and the funding, which is primarily from the K-P shareholders. If you had done any of what used to be called investigative journalism, you’d know the truth.)
>
> Are you trying to outdo the Washington Post’s rental of its pages to Pete Peterson? Shame on you for reprinting this trash without qualification. There’s a place for content like that: it’s called the Op-Ed page.
>
> This is right down there with paying subscriber money to Constitution-destroyer John Yoo. Thanks a lot for reinforcing my decision never to subscribe to the Inquirer while that Ad Man is in charge.
On 1/4/2010 4:34 PM, Marimow, Bill wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. ******: Thank you very much for your e-mail. As the editor of The Inquirer, I’m ultimately responsible for what we publish, and I take full responsibility for publishing today’s piece from Kaiser. We’re well aware of how the Kaiser Health Service is funded. More importantly, we know first-hand the journalists who staff the news service, and they are some of the most dedicated, experienced and knowledgeable journalists in the profession. Last but not least, we retain the final approval and editing rights for all of their work.
>
> I hope you’ll reconsider your decision and subscribe to The Inquirer. I would be happy to talk with you, and you’re welcome to give me a call at 215-***-****.
>
> Sincerely,
> Bill Marimow
>
Disclaimer: The following is this former reader’s opinion:
Now let me see… because you think the writers are great guys, that makes it okay? This non-journalistic business transaction that does not pass the sniff test? Do you really not see how compromised your position is? It raises the question, just how much did Kaiser pay Tierney to place that piece in your paper? (Is it more than Scaife pays him to print the ravings of Santorum and Yoo? I know that everything is for sale at the Inky these days…) Would you be willing to make that Kaiser agreement public? I will bet a thousand dollars right now that you did not pay a penny for that opinion piece – care to show your cards? And the cancelled check? And all the related records and correspondence? Or do the principles of Sunshine not apply to newspapers?
At bottom, that “story” is a one-sided screed against the current healthcare reform efforts, no matter how much the lobbyists at Kaiser have dressed it up as a human interest heartstring-puller. It in no ways belongs in the pages of a real newspaper. Any way you want to paint it, that is NOT unbiased journalism, and you know it. When you bring into question the reputation of a newspaper’s editorial impartiality, you have destroyed that paper’s value as a reliable source of fact and truth. And if you think this episode is going to remain quiet, please reflect back on your sale of a business “column” to Citizen’s Bank in 2007. How did that work out for ya? Was it worth the hit to your dignity? Did you even see what is happening to the Washington Post? What you are doing is not ensuring survival, it is something more akin to assisted suicide.
Inches for Rent, Indeed.
SJD