Rally - HD from Peterson Foundation on Vimeo.
Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson is making his move. Today in front of a Washington-centric audience at the Newseum, and flanked by deficit peacocks Kent Conrad and Evan Bayh, he launched OweNo (my sentiments exactly), a $20 million dollar ad campaign designed to “start a discussion” about deficit reduction, and by “start a discussion” I mean “cut your retirement savings and your health care.” Sam Stein reports:
Titled “OweNo”, the campaign, which promotes a mock presidential candidate irreverently named Hugh Jidette (get it? Huge debt), doesn’t take on Social Security reform directly. But the connections are fairly obvious and it has the program’s defenders deeply wary about being outgunned. The Peterson Foundation, for one, has never shied away from its push to reform the entitlement program. And in introducing the $20 million effort, the organization’s founder, former Nixon commerce secretary and fiscal conservative Pete Peterson made it abundantly clear that Social Security is in his sights.
“Solving our fiscal issues without fundamental entitlement reform is a statistical impossibility,” he said. “Entitlement reform must provide benefits for the most vulnerable. But if we wait too long to reform and we confront a crisis, the politics may become brutal and even violent and in such a situation there would be no assurance that the safety net, even for the most vulnerable, might not be seriously frayed.”
This begins a Sherman’s march for the deficit hysterics, a series of reports and fearmongering culminating in the release of the cat food commission report on December 1. Before that time, several reports calling for austerity will land, including the Pew-Peterson Commission report (funded by Pete Peterson), a report from Robert Greenstein and Charles Blahous saying that Congress should address Social Security changes “sooner rather than later” (The report is funded by Pew and Peterson), and the Bipartisan Policy Center Debt Reduction Task Force report from Alice Rivlin and Pete Domenici (Rivlin sits on the Pew-Peterson Commission and is therefore funded by Peterson as well).
Rivlin is also part of the cat food commission, and she’ll probably lead the charge for any benefit cuts to social spending and in particular Social Security, joining Presidential appointees like co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, Ann Fudge and David Cote. And Conrad, also a member of the commission, is genuflecting before Peterson at the Newseum event:
“People on the left who don’t want to touch entitlements, that is just unrealistic,” said Conrad. “I would say to my friends on the left it is unrealistic, Medicare and Social Security are headed for insolvency. The idea that nothing has to be done is divorced from reality. On the right, those who say no new revenue, I believe, are also in denial.”
The Rivlin/Domenici report is likely to be even more aggressive at slashing entitlements, to draw fire away from the cat food commission report, and also to make that the sensible moderate alternative. Practically all of the solutions will fall on the spending side, and we can expect the same from the cat food commission, perhaps with a modest benefit for low-income seniors that costs little, helps a few, and can be used to buy support. Seniors over 55 will be largely (but not entirely) exempted, in an effort to play more conservative older voters against their children and grandchildren. All of this will be done in private; the cat food commission’s next public meeting will be the one where they deliver the recommendations.
Basically all of official Washington can be expected to get behind this over the next month, and explain to the masses that they intend to make them sacrifice for a “better America.”
Other countries who have tried to pull off austerity in the middle of a jobs crisis and an economy recovering from recession have utterly failed. Pete Peterson has been working for decades to send America into that same ditch. This is the month he feels he can succeed.



62 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I think it’s super important for the Democrats to make any entitlement cutting the Republican Party’s baby.
Alternatively, any social security cutting should be designed so that the red states take it on the chin. I’m not exactly sure how you do that with a nationwide program. But the fact is that first $660 of a check does not take a lot of contributions to earn. (So called 90% bend point.) This benefits the South and western square states, and penalizes the Northeast, Illinois and California.
The reason the Democrats used to have a lock on some southern and rural seats is because the older generation of congressmen made it clear that the Democrats brought home the bacon and the Republicans wanted to take it away. Nowadays that distinction is not so clear.
Hoofin, why do you persist in these fantasies?
As the Dems are considered responsible for the New Deal the lords and masters have decreed that the Dems will be the ones to take it down.
Thus it was ordered and the Dems are dutifully obeying those orders.
I wonder what would happen if we could mount even half the effort for protecting Social Security from this as we did to shorten the suspension of Keith Olbermann? Is anyone getting that machine up on running?
A nice trick for Obama would be to contrast the tax cuts for the upper 2% with slashes to social security.
Ooops, never mind. Forgot he’s in favor of both. My bad.
Hugh Jidette is lame. How about F. Dapoor?
Who will defend Social Security? Anyone? If anyone does, will they be audible? Visible? I’m wondering whether this rape and robbery will be committed in broad daylight against numb and half willing victims, in front of witnesses who won’t talk.
Be ready for means testing coming to a middle class near you. Also the Bush OMB had the imputed income from owning your own home on menu of possible new income tax items. Meanwhile, Petersen, who probably dodged all taxes on his billion dollar trust, and may have been paying the 15 percent hedge/equity fund interest carry tax rate wants you all to shine on all that FICA tax you have been paying these years and donate the 4.5 Trillion lock box including 2.5 Trillion of social security to the deficit of his choice. You know the lock box does not even exist as far as the Federal Reserve Board is concerned. The IMF calls it an inter governmental loan.
This was the problems the Democrats created with their 1980′s strategies and the deals they made then.
Before that time, people really had to worry about social security being cut. Then, during Reagan, they and the Republicans agreed to keep things like current social security “off the table”. This meant that all the retired people could vote Republican without worry. Once certain government spending became untouchable entitlements, and the other discretionary, it became much easier to attack future entitlements.
Later, the Republicans also effectively made Red State money off the table, since the D’s weren’t going to touch that, either. So what did it leave? Parks and student loans.
This was another box the D’s boxed themselves into.
Notice that those Tea Party members that had the most extreme views on Social Security (such as it being unconstitutional or supported privatization) such as Angle, Miller, and Buck all lost their elections.
Also, at a Heritage Foundation meeting today a Tea Party leader in the Q&A expressed that Tea Party members were angry to hear politicians calling Social Security an “Entitlement” … She said … We paid into the System and we deserve to collect our benefits … although she did mention that “some” compromise might be possible.
“I think it’s super important for the Democrats to make any entitlement cutting the Republican Party’s baby.”
Oh, I thought it was super-important instead to not cut any entitlements in the first place. Unless Obama changes parties and officially becomes a Republican, it will be awfully hard to make the Deficit Commission’s paternity Republican not to mention if Obama signs the cuts instead of vetoes the cuts.
Peter Peterson is a 9-11 Terror Profiteer. He received almost a Trillion dollars, from the destruction of World Trade Center 7. If Columbo or Jim Rockford was on this case, Peterson would be the number one suspect for the 9-11 attack, because he profited the most.
It was admitted that Silverstein and Peterson ordered that WTC 7 be destroyed in a “controlled fashion”. Peterson was rewarded for destroying WTC 7. The hundreds of billions of dollars should have been given to victims and given for health care of the first responders.
Also Peterson is an architect of the Irak war and the massive propaganda campaign supporting it. He also believes it is a tragedy that senior citizens live too long. Peterson is truly an evil man.
Assholes like this Wall Street billionaire don’t care about deficits. They only care about making money, money, money while others lose everything.
This more then anything else he’s done shows that he isn’t really a Dem. He pulled the “Cat Food” Commission out of thin air. It’s not anywhere in the Dem. 2008 party platform nor was it part of his campaign. So where did it come from? It’s part of his marching orders from his mostly GOP bosses on Wall st. He continues to do the job they hired him to do. If he stays the course as I expect him to he will be a 1 termer and he will all but destroy whats left of the Dem. party for a generation.
And the clear majority of Americans oppose it.
The U.S. public is more likely to support their celebrity idols than in protecting their own self interests.
Counterattack.
My opinion of what is needed:
1. An articulate, factual, simple message of the entitlement situation.
2. Wide, repeated dissemination of that message via as much media as possible
This was lacking on healthcare, and perhaps on marijuana and others.
We readers are fairly knowledgeable on this stuff, and even we (as demonstrated recently) are not up on the healthcare situation and the law (for one example) like we should be.
So decide on the message and keep hammering on it. Make sure it’s true. Repeat it. Drive into people’s brains. Sell it like one would sell, say, catfood.
Is someone working on “Edit?”
And his reward for it is being called a socialist and watching his political rivals get money to defeat him.
He’s already sealed his fate as a 1 termer. As for whether or not he destroys the Dem Party is up to the millions who voted for him in 2008 who now have to show their displeasure by voting in 2012 for any candidate who runs a campaign focused on doing what Candidate Obama said he would do, but President Obama didn’t.
Here is more evidence that Peter Peterson should be a suspect in an investigation of the 9-11 attacks. Peterson ran the Council of Fascist Relations, which was pimping the 9-11-Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection and Saddam’s WMDs. But there was no connection. There were no WMDs.
Saddam Hussein was a criminal but Peter Peterson and the CFR were framing him for a crime he did not commit. A crime that gave Peterson an immense fortune.
“Solving our fiscal issues without fundamental” military, prison, Homeland Security, CIA, BATF, DEA, FBI, and police “reform is a statistical impossibility.” None of these are ever mentioned when discussing ways to reduce spending. Ever. Yet the majority of every federal tax dollar goes to making war and providing “security.” Whenever someone like Peterson talks about curbing spending by cutting social programs, they are most likely ignorant, powerless or attempting to rob US citizens. As long as no one forces the issue of cutting back on the massive cost of war—or corporate welfare, from subsidies to tax havens—Social Security will be a thing of the past.
Let’s solve a problem that might arise in the future right now during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Let’s talk about cutting people’s benefits in the future. That’ll really give people confidence to spend, which our economy needs. Let’s weaken the social safety net during an economic crisis. What could go wrong?
Honestly, I don’t know why they are doing this now. Is it because people are too depressed and demoralized to care or vote?
Yes ! Yes ! Yes ! Grip It and Rip It, Dayen !
the mother of all Good Cop – Bad Cop cons has begun in earnest
Obama and Senate Democrats should be stopping them rather than legitimizing the discussion and even helping them to screw over the American people some more.
Social Security was safer when Republicans were in charge.
Bring out Our CAT FOO’ – FIGHTER$ for the CATACLYSMIC Confrontation with Putz Putterson and the rest of his Obamanible CATSINJAMMERS!
You gotta take everything off the shelves before the store burns down . . . ?
not to engage in wild speculation …
but it has been said in some quarters that this is a sop to Blue Dogs and others in return for their participation in the HCR battle and that these masters of the electoral universe think they have it gamed their way by doing it with co operative Lame Duck Congressional Dems
as I was just telling a friend – this means these are some reckless mofo’s willing to risk everything – from permanently damaging their Party’s ‘brand to a default on a Sovereign Debt, all in the name of quid pro quo – which of course makes them unfit to hold office
but no one’s asked me
Then the Democrats wonder why they are losing the Senior vote.
effin’ perfect !
Scary image. And it looks like that’s what these billionaires are doing.
And reproductive rights were safer under Republicans, too.
The Democrats wonder why they are losing women voters…
And the Blue Dogs apparently are the reason we can’t let the tax cuts expire on the top 2% during the lame duck. Their power should have been reduced now that they have proven to be electoral losers.
Yep, lets have the government default on 2.6 trillion in T-notes, that should give the markets confidence.
Why am I inclined to think that the $20M will turn into a far larger number before this is over? Given the stakes, the Kleptocrats will see $20M as a mere down payment – chump change in the whole scheme of things.
Obama actually repeated Peterson’s favorite myth of SS being a drain on the deficit in that 60 Minutes piece – one big phat ‘tell’
So you think that the choices are EITHER let the government default OR cut people’s benefits?
If SS benefits are cut, it will be at the doorstep of the Democratic party. Barry will try to triangulate — stating that he protected it from deeper cuts — but no one accepts anything he say as truth anymore.
The progressive movement — and FDL — will never have an opportunity again like opposing Obama and the Rs on SS cuts. I’m not smart enough to know exactly what to do, but if we allow it to happen unopposed on our watch, we may as well hang up our spikes for the foreseeable future.
No… that Social Security trust fund is the only big pile of money left in DC to steal. Everything else in DC has been stripped and put up on blocks.
Every kleptocrat in DC is drooling on that Social Security Trust Fund. They want that money now.
sadly, far too many Democrats could fall for his “just needs a little tweaking” bs, especially if they follow the Diamond/Orszag recommendation to kick down a few more $$$ to those below the poverty line – then of course cut the shit out of it for folks 55 and younger
c’mon, you can hear them swooning/ratioinalizing already – “stfu,he increased benefits to the needy !”
I’m not sure that they are planning on default, I think their primary goal is to force the SS Administration to roll the debt over rather than redeem it (which is what is needed in order to pay benefits, and the reason the trust fund exists in the first place).
Yes, the Obama ass-kissers will rationalize whatever he does, but neither the young or old will fall for it. Cutting S benefits will kill off Obama and the Democrats. And, unlike many others on FDL, I don’t see a silver lining.
If we don’t get a whole bunch of torches and pitchforks in the streets, the Neo-con crime mobs are gonna steal it.
Put another way, out of this mess, progressives have to forge a reinvigorated movement with some momentum — something that the majority of voters can relate to.
KEITH……are ya listening……half a million to petition ya back…..start the ball rollin…Keith
HANDS OFF SS…..!!!!!!!!!!
masaccio ‘splains it
and Teddy Partridge has written some illuminating posts/comments on it as well – I’ll do some archive diving
EGG….ZACTLY!
we need T-shirts…sweat shirts
HANDS OFF MY SS!!!1
Absolutely.
We’re never going to find a better issue to get our collective acts together on than Social Security.
sadly, Keith has yet to utter the words Foreclosure Fraud on his show – I take that to mean he keeps his mouth shut for the really big con. I will be pleasantly surprised if he calls out Obama and the Dems on this, although I do expect to hear lots of ‘Scary Republicans, Privatization Booga Booga !‘ from him in the coming weeks
Hey Conrad, who’s the deluded one, you rich jerk? What about raising taxes and cutting defense spending?
If KO and TRMS support cuts to SS benefits, they should be ostracized from the progressive community. This is a clear cut, exceedingly important, black and white issue.
I checked your link, doesn’t address what I said. The issue is not redemption versus default, it’s redemption versus roll-over. The same thing we do with the rest of our debt, none of it actually gets paid off. When Clinton was running a surplus, a tiny bit was getting paid off, and Grandpa Greenspan ran to Congress to testify that this was a disaster.
The SS TF debt is structured to mature as it is needed. That’s what they want to stop. No need to default if it is never redeemed. Interest payments are so small now that they are not a big factor.
Sorry, forgot the snark tag.
HANDS OFF MY SS
“As long as no one forces the issue of cutting back on the massive cost of war—or corporate welfare, from subsidies to tax havens—Social Security will be a thing of the past.”
replying to Don Bacon, too.
Yes, we need to hammer away at re-framing this stuff for the low-information voters.
Phrases like ‘corporate welfare’ and ‘corporate entitlements’ get the message
across nicely, as does the Obama’s ‘catfood commission’.
‘Wars or jobs?’ is another pithy message that cuts through the distracting left vs. right noise-machine.
Interesting how the warmongers frame their
endless wars as ‘homeland security’. We need to re-appropriate
‘security’ and make ‘social security’ a bigger priority
than overseas adventurism and plunder.
This shouldn’t be a hard thing to get
across! It affects people personally, no?
If it’s the Obama-appointed Peterson-driven and even funded in large part Cat Food Commission, stacked by Obama with deficit hawks, how in hell does this not get tied or, better, superglued on to Dems?
Whose hands?
Keep Obama’s Hands off my SocSec!
Keep DC politicians’ hands off my and your SocSec?
WHOSE HANDS?
I’m not saying they support it – just that they wont call it out for what it is
there came a moment during the HCR debacle where Maddow and Chris Hayes were mewling about Obama’s bipartisanship fetish – it was glaringly obvious at that point, even to slower kids like me, that it was just a beard to pass Corp friendly, weak tea, incremental sh* – but neither one of them would say it – no one will ever convince me that those two bright lights didn’t know ‘zactly what was going on
I think we are to see the same here – and I will be thrilled to be wrong
Yup. Language choice affects ability to think about an issue. That’s why those who would like to steal SS funds and cut social programs use the word “entitlements.” It makes these programs seem like something extra or an unwarranted luxury in tight economic times instead of something that everyone paid for.
I like “War or Jobs?” Guns or butter is dated. The complete lack of public discussion of this choice is stunning. It should be the central question.
Use the word entitlement only in conjunction with the word corporate. If corporations are technically people, where is their sacrifice for the common good?
Yes. Like the ‘catfood commission’ — which should
be superglued to Obama –
let’s start spreading this meme via FDL:
“Use the word entitlement only in conjunction with the word corporate. If corporations are technically people, where is their sacrifice for the common good?”
Poor Mr Peterson, it seems that the Oligarchs are running out of people to steal from.
If they can’t loot SS, will they be forced to steal from each other?