Peterson-Pew Commission Uses Jingoism to Advance Budget Agenda
Monday 04 January 2010
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: misselisabeth, Sami Keinänen)
We need to cut the budget deficit because the foreigners are taking over. That is the word according to a new report, "Red Ink Rising," from a commission financed by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and the Pew Foundation. The commission warns us that foreigners now hold almost 50 percent of the national debt. This is one of the main points of its stern warning that we must get the deficit under control.
Before anyone gets too concerned about the foreign menace, it is important to consider the source of this report. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation was founded by Peter G. Peterson, the billionaire Wall Street tycoon and former Nixon commerce secretary. Peterson has a long history of funding efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare. Before his latest foundation venture, he started the Concord Coalition and wrote books with menacing titles like "Gray Dawn," that foretold of the demographic disaster that would be created by the retirement of the baby boom cohort.
The Pew Foundation, its partner in this exercise, is perhaps best known for its efforts to hype scary stories about Social Security in the mid-90s. Back then, it spent tens of millions of dollars on "Americans Discuss Social Security," an effort to promote the view that the Social Security system was in imminent financial danger and demanded the country's immediate attention.
The economic crisis caused by the collapse of the housing bubble has temporarily pushed the deficit to unsustainable levels. This deficit is primarily due to the lost tax revenue and unemployment benefits that are associated with double-digit unemployment in addition to the bailout bucks for the failed banks.
Of course, we would not be in this situation if anyone had listened to warnings about the dangers of the housing bubble before it was too late. Unfortunately, the Peterson-Pew types were using their money and influence to drown out these warnings - hyping instead their concerns about deficits. Thanks to their incompetence as economic analysts, we now have much greater deficit concerns today than we did when they made these warnings a few years ago.
However, the devastation caused by the collapse of the housing bubble weakens rather than strengthens the case for their agenda. For example, the idea of cutting Social Security for any current or near retirees becomes absurd in a context in which tens of millions of middle-class families have just seen much of their wealth destroyed with the collapse of housing values and the plunge in the stock market. The same applies to cuts in Medicare.
But the Peterson-Pew crew does not feel the need to stick to reality in pushing its agenda; hence the focus on the foreign ownership of the government debt. This is obviously intended to scare people with the prospect that evil foreigners will control our destiny.
However, if we can get the distinguished members of this commission to look at an intro econ book, they will discover that the acquisition of US assets (like government bonds or stocks) by foreigners is determined by the trade deficit, not the budget deficit. In other words, the reason that foreigners are buying up hundreds of billions of dollars of US financial assets (public or private) is because we have a huge trade deficit, not a budget deficit. (Arguably, the causation goes in the other direction, but the accounting identity is between the trade deficit and foreign purchases of US assets.)
The trade deficit is in turn determined by the value of the dollar. People in the United States buy imported goods at Wal-Mart because the high dollar makes them cheap, not because of the budget deficit. Remarkably, the Peterson-Pew gang doesn't mention either the value of dollar or the trade deficit even once in its report.
Its agenda is going after the budget deficit, including Social Security and Medicare, not seriously addressing the problem of foreign indebtedness. If it requires being a little disingenuous to do so, these folks will rise to the challenge.
The other notable place where this group plays fast and loose with the facts is warning that future generations could experience lower standards of living because of the government debt. There are no plausible projections that show future generations experiencing worse standards of living on average than we do at present due to the debt.
Many families may see declines in living standards due to a continuing rise in inequality. However, inequality is not mentioned in the Peterson-Pew report. It is possible that the environmental damage from global warming could also reduce future living standards, but the environment is also not mentioned in this report. When you've got a line to push, why let the facts get in the way?
So, the question confronting the American people is whether we are going to allow the Wall Street crew that wrecked the economy to come back and take away our Social Security and Medicare. If the answer is yes, sign up for the deficit commission being pushed in Congress by the Peterson-Pew crew. On the other hand, if you don't think Wall Street should get every last penny, you might want to let the Congressional proponents of this commission know how you feel.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Dean you aren't helping -
Mon, 01/04/2010 - 14:19 — Anonymous (not verified)Dean you aren't helping - walk from your office to Pew on L street, unleash legitimate investigative journalism. It doesn't matter (apparently) if we buy our F35s with Chinese money. Corporate America (by proxy, through the US Government that they own) is telling America we will no longer even minimally care for poor, tired, huddled masses, and it may be more lucrative if they would simply die sooner. Meanwhile, we can't spend enough on guns, bombs and security. The nation has reached it's critical point of insanity.
I'd like to hear an analysis
Mon, 01/04/2010 - 14:49 — Anonymous (not verified)I'd like to hear an analysis of the argument, not screeching about who is making it.
This article is not new
Mon, 01/04/2010 - 14:59 — Liberal Ray (not verified)This article is not new news; in the 1700s, 80% of the US debt was held by foreigners.
Have faith in our country; 3 decades ago, the media scare tactic was the Japanese were buying our country up!!! Right, they bought Rockefeller Center for $280,000,000; and 10 years later sold it back the $60,000,000.
I was under the impression
Mon, 01/04/2010 - 17:48 — An (not verified)I was under the impression that there would be plenty of money available for both Social Security and Medicare if the money had not been "borrowed" "removed" or "stolen" to make other budget items look better. Am I mistaken?
Wrong Question - Again.
Mon, 01/04/2010 - 20:23 — Bill O'Rights (not verified)Wrong Question - Again. It's not a question of having foreigners own 50% of our debt, it is a question of our debt being so high that most of the money collected in income tax is paid to service the interest only on that debt - AND that foreigners own half of that staggeringly large debt. WRT 'letting Wall Street have it's way' - take note that Wall Street was appointed by O to run the friggin' Treasury! This ignorant writer claiming that debt doesn't affect future generations represents that last denialist gasp before our unfolding crisis makes it obvious to even the most hopeful Polyannas of the remaining loyalist Obots. How do these people expect that a nation is less subject to foreclosure than we are as individuals? They've just never seen it before, it is a matter of ignorance and wishful thinking - please find an adult to write on this subject, it is too important for Baker or the droves of other writers with their heads in the sand.
I defend Dean Baker, his
Tue, 01/05/2010 - 00:30 — Ken Hall (not verified)I defend Dean Baker, his track record is pretty good if you've been paying attention, and his ideas, if utilized by our current administration, would have been far more favorable to the average citizen than the Wall Street sellouts that have been implemented. He is a guy who spends all his time thinking about economics as opposed to some of his critics here, what are their bona fides? Diletttante economists? Let's give him some respect as a professional and a progressive. He is at least not a corporate shill. He's not wrong, he may have a different viewpoint but it's a substantial and well-founded one and worth hearing, as opposed to Peterson/Pew and his few detractors here.
If I owe the bank a few
Tue, 01/05/2010 - 03:16 — gehan (not verified)If I owe the bank a few thousand dollars I better do what they say; if I owe the bank a trillion dollars they better listen careful to what I say. How is this different from our situation with China?
Same old partisan Pete's
Tue, 01/05/2010 - 11:02 — Anonymous (not verified)Same old partisan Pete's baloney and it's PHEWY !
Earthlings: Ignore -- Ignore -- Ignore
Don't worry, Dean--few
Tue, 01/05/2010 - 11:35 — Anonymous (not verified)Don't worry, Dean--few Americans have any grasp of economics at all. Hey, Pete, want to cut the deficit? Great! Let's cut the military budget to what is necessary to actually defend the country as opposed to stealing energy resources. A fair system of taxation? A jobs program to get money circulating again and relieve states of the burden of unemployment payments? Radical!
PetePeterson has a vendetta
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 08:34 — Anonarcmous (not verified)PetePeterson has a vendetta agains the common good of the country's well being, social security medicare, etc. What he fails to address is this is caused by his Republican Private Business Corporations that moved all our industry to foreign countries so they could destoy the unions & not pay workers a decent wage, && NOT PAY TAXES. So they have well accomplished. Private US companies that sell in this country should pay a fee for what they import: levis made in mexico & egypt, clothes from pakistan & honduras, luxury items from vietnam, & all the staples from china. & americans need to vote with their wallet & stop or minimize buying all this stuff. It is a little bit of work, but it is doable. It is also a great feeling.
They cut taxes for the rich
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:47 — Hilary (not verified)They cut taxes for the rich and then expect us to be surprised when there's a budget deficit. Then they expect us to tolerate the dismantling of the social safety-net as a "fix" to their totally contrived deficit.
Thanks Dean for giving us a
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:46 — TessyRenberg (not verified)Thanks Dean for giving us a heads up on the spin!
Hey there Bill O
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 15:12 — Yossarian_22 (not verified)Hey there Bill O Rights...the idea that was conceived waaaay back in the Middle Ages to replace PUBLIC treasuries with PRIVATE ones (Just like the Fed) is a game of perpetual debt roll-over. It's not supposed to end. The Fed wants us to pay INTEREST, but not the PRINCIPAL. As the game has been played, the roll-over feature isn't supposed to affect the masses to the point of rebellion, or the whole game ends with public militias cleaning house. They know this. I too, wish Dean would address the story of central banking and moneylenders more closely too, but within the parameters of HOW THIS GAME IS PLAYED, he's right to point out what he's saying. Does Pete Peterson want to go back to wooden tally sticks of old (maybe not a bad idea, frankly)? No. None of the so-called "conservatives" even mention the true power of a public-owned bank with sovereign power to mint and print fixed VALUED monies. After all, the Revolutionary war wasn't fought over taxes. It was fought over BANKING rights of nations!
I'm a bit late reading this
Sat, 01/30/2010 - 21:51 — maximumdave (not verified)I'm a bit late reading this but thanks Dean for addressing this issue. This is a dangerous man. Progressives and others concerned about his pro Wall Street subterfuge should be aware of his stealthy assault on privatizing Social Security. This issue will soon unfold again but corporate media will bury it or ignore it.