The Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein, who is sounding more and more like Thomas Friedman with each passing day, links favorably to a softball creampuff interview of Pete Peterson at The Daily Beast. Peterson, you may recall, is the billionaire Wall Streeter who wants to put the vast majority of us on catfood in our old age so he doesn’t have to pay taxes, and gee gosh golly gollwhickers Ezra apparently thinks he’s just the most charming guy, charming enough for Mr. Klein to overlook the decades-long evidence of the former Nixon Cabinet member’s paper trail in favor of doing a “balanced” report the way all the nice serious big-boy pundits like David Broder do. (Though really, I shouldn’t be too hard on Ezra: Peterson’s so slick, he’s rolled even actual journalistic legend Bill Moyers — or perhaps the CPB just kept Moyers on a short leash here.)
Interestingly enough, Klein’s employer, the WaPo, relies on Peterson’s new right-wing propaganda rag, the Fiscal Times, to provide it with cheap content — content that (surprise, surprise!) pushes the Peterson agenda with regard to slashing social programs in the name of deficit hawkery. (And of course the fact that it reinforces the message that neocon Fred Hiatt, the top dog at the Post, wants to see in print doesn’t hurt, either.) And Peterson has a long history of more-or-less successfully trying to charm, if not outright buy, the press, as this 1997 FAIR story shows:
Peterson denounces the “mad, drunken bash” of the Reagan years. That would be the time when the top income-tax rate was cut from 70 percent to 28 percent, military spending went sky-high, and trillions were made (and lost) on savings and loans and takeovers financed by junk bonds. He was himself, of course, making out like a bandit, hustling for his share of the action, and contributing his bit to Republican campaign funds. He also led a chorus of corporate executives who keened about the exploding federal deficit. His contribution was a key series of articles in the New York Review of Books in 1982 (12/2/82, 12/16/82) that prepared the intellectual climate for the 1983 Social Security “rescue,” which raised payroll taxes and lowered benefits.
The series purported to prove with mathematical certainty that the entitlements of the elderly were snatching food from babies and driving the nation toward bankruptcy. George Will called it “the most important journalism of 1982.” (Washington Post, 12/19/82). Its charts persuaded such liberals as Tom Wicker and Anthony Lewis. Leslie Stahl of ABC said Peterson “really began to educate me.” (She has since repaid the favor with appearances by her mentor on 60 Minutes.)
All the journalists he met seemed impressed by his expertise, and by his generosity in offering to surrender his own entitlements. It does not seem to have occurred to any of his interviewers that a rise of 1 percentage point in his income tax rate would cost him perhaps twice as much as his Social Security and Medicare benefits combined. Nor have any observed how policies he has supported have transferred the tax burden from the wealthy to the wage earner. Indeed, in Facing Up, Peterson remarks with pleased surprise that nobody had clamored for a cut in the Social Security payroll tax to match cuts in benefits.
Even though Peterson has pretty much owned the self-styled Serious People for many years now, the rise of the internet — the very medium through which Ezra Klein first made his mark — allowed less-wealthy but more-truthful entities a chance to counter his solid-gold bullhorn with solid facts debunking his Concord-Coalition fantasies.
One would think that, being a guy who came up as part of the reality-based community, Mr. Klein would know all of this. But I guess the lure of the cocktail weenies and the heady whiff of “access” to the rich and powerful has had a corrosive effect on his memory banks, in the classic manner first described by Upton Sinclair a century ago: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”




64 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Ezra always shows right where Obama is headed. Always.
The way things are going for me and probably millions of others, cat food is going to be a luxury Sunday feast for me if I ever get to retire.
Klein must be geting a nice pat on the head from Peterson and is purring like all getout!
Seems to me that one of Dracula’s chief personality traits was charm.
Ted Bundy too.
If ‘journalism’ programs are putting out people like this, they need to get shut down. Now.
Yup.
Good Morning, PW
So many other people do serious better than I. I think I’ll stick with silly today. If that’s okay.
Take it from a poor person (me) cat food already is a luxury for those of us down here. It is not covered by food stamps, which already only allows $1.19 per person per meal or $3.57 per day. Try to feed yourself adequately on that and you quickly find cat food is beyond the budget.
Just sayin’ lol
Cat in Seattle
Isn’t it amazing how sacrifice is demanded of everyone but the rich — who just keep getting richer?
By the way, this NYT article from today undercuts the notion that raising the retirement age, as touted by Peterson, Alan Simpson and the rest of the Catfood Crew, isn’t a benefit cut:
For some seriousness, silliness is the only response. Hence my Incurious George graphic.
By the way, I urge everyone to read the FAIR story from 1997 to get a nice glimpse of the real Pete Peterson. This is a guy who is touted as a god among men when he’s more like a bullshit artist:
25% cut if you retire (like most of the unemployed will do) at 62 if 70 is the new full benefit age for retirement under Social Security. I think that my source is from one of the recent Dean Baker pieces but I should check the source further and give you a link.
To me, the key part of that article is that people who want to make up for the loss of benefits will have to cut current spending dramatically. That is a terrible outcome, especially when demand is already slack.
Within a month of his inauguration and at the behest of Pete Peterson, a reactionary who has endowed a billion-dollar foundation to repeal the New Deal and the Great Society, Obama set up his Catfood Commission to begin Peterson’s agenda, which includes death panels:
They hope we will just die before that, like many already do, thus never being able to collect anything at all if we continue working.
what interests me about this 70 age thing is, nobody even wants to hire anyone over 50 now. Older people are not being hired and they are the first laid off if at all possible because their seniority is deemed “overqualified and too expensive” to continue to pay where a younger person is “cheaper”. What makes them think anything will be “improved” by raising the age? Will anyone please tell me where all these seniors will be working except as former engineers who are now greeters at Walmart?
Inquiring minds would like to know …
Cat in Seattle
Rice is cheaper than cat food. Of course, Basamati rice is more expense than plain white rice. Rice with bits of meat and/or vegetables seems to be the poor man’s supper. In think in really poor countries, they eat the cats.
Lived with a small group of acquaintances in the very early seventies on an old farm. We were referred to as, “those hippies in the commune,” by many in the area at the time.
I am thinking that this kind of living arrangement, with hopefully caring friends, needs to be cultivated again for many of us to be able to survive into old age.
Hey PW, thanks for yet another excellent article.
As Ian Welch said more than once, “In 1980 there was a class war. Only the wealthy showed up and they’ve been trickling down on us ever since.” Well, in that ongoing class war Peterson is the face of the enemy.
If Obama told Ezra to jump off a bridge, his immediate reaction would be “which one?”
Buying brown rice and a variety of dried beans at a natural foods store, supplemented by veges/greens from the farmer’s market or canned if need be it is possible to feed one’s self on that budget. I do it. It’s certainly not the meals centered around beef, pork or chicken most of us are used to but it’s just as nutritious and pretty much chemical free. Amazing what spices can do to a dish.
Tomatoes/tomato paste/sauce with mushrooms, onion, garlic, oregano and other spices added makes a great sauce for any type of pasta.
We can survive on less but it takes a change in lifestyle, which can be very difficult.
Thanks PW and good morning pups.
Having long considered ol’ Pete a snake oil salesman at best, I have been apalled that he is fawned over by so many with national platforms. He is a thief and liar.
The lie that stealing from Social Security will reduce the buget deficit is really beggining to piss me off. Just sayin’.
Yeah. It’s the anti-stimulus. Already, I know people who’ve been scared by all of this into sewing their wallets shut. That’s not how you get the economy moving again.
And dogs. I was horrified the first time I went into a butcher shop in Hong Kong.
I am sorry. I didn’t mean to upset you. I am trying to find a source for my statistic. Be well. Try not to let the worries harm you.
Cat used to be a main dish in places like Southern Italy.
Oh, also, the Daily Beast might be worse than the Daily Caller. Just awful.
Oh, Gorsh. Because of the huge percentage of Hispanics in my town, the meat counters at the local Vallarta’s market carries all manner of beef and pork parts. Snouts, hooves, guts. The first time I saw them I was grossed out. But, guess what, after 8 years here, I still get grossed out.
I can’t even come up with something silly to say to that. I think I’d rather eat rattlesnake.
Kinda strange walking into a butcher shop in Spain. The head of one of the bulls killed in the ring the day before atop the meat case, flies and all.
Tastes like chicken. *g*
It’s enough to make a girl go vegetarian, again. When I was one, I couldn’t walk in the part of the store where the meat was displayed. The smell knocked me out. In a bad way.
Ezra — along with MY — led the way in minimizing the importance of a large stimulus, a public option, TBTF, regulation of derivatives, and many other initiatives important to progressives.
Slimy, yet satisfying.
Ten points to the first who gets the movie reference to #33.
It’s really important to cook them :-)
Good Cop, Baby Cop
When I was a kid in the south the aroma of the foods being cooked by poor folks was amazing but ya didn’t wanna know what was in it. Chitlin’s, scrapple, all kinds of stuff. Tasted great, though.
In my little town, there are a lot of folks who sell tamales out of their trunks. Many people barbeque in front of their houses and sell food. As good as it smells, and I would love to support the locals, I’m uneasy about not knowing what’s really in the food and the cleanliness of the preparation. I’m probably being overly Silly, but that’s how it is.
I heard it in Lion King. Don’t know Good Cop, Baby Cop.
You’re wiretapping my brain again, aren’t cha? Love your mind, Dragon.
I figured if I could eat the pieces of whatever on a stick that sidewalk vendors sold in the Philippines I could eat anything, anywhere. We called it monkey meat on a stick but who knows. Good, though.
The dogs led to some cultural problems in HI when I was out there in the late ’70s/early ’80s.
But then I’m a country boy whose father was known to do a good job cooking things like squirrel, rabbit, turtle, even ground hog.
Prepared like my grandmother did and my mother does, these foods aren’t just nutritious, they’re delicious. Thanks for reminding us!
Bizarre Foods is a great show in that regard.
I agree ~ or with extended family but in this world “family” is loosely used so that living with friends is OK, but blood relations you suddenly become a leech. I live with family now, but it is “on the sly” meaning family members are in my home who contribute, but are not “counted” as they are working McJobs that would never pay the rent for themselves, who help with the budget.
I am working at this time with the definitions of “family” with conservatives who get it. In the old days extended family was the norm because it is practical. Grandma was there to keep the home going while the younger people worked (on the farm or in industry), with sibling aunts, uncles, and others.
Now if you tried to do that now, suddenly somehow this is “unhealthy” for the social worker types (where immigrants are smart because they do just that and save themselves a bundle of money in childcare costs alone plus the kids actually grow up with family always around, along with food costs, and combining incomes to pay for things like energy costs, etc).
Just saying that, as a progressive I have come to realize “family” is considered differently with “my people” who count non-blood relations far quicker. In my state for instance, relative care of children taken from abusive homes by CPS, have *no* rights. None. When grandparents and relative care givers are falsely accused of abuse, they are not even allowed a lawyer in court,nor do they have a word of say for the kids they have loved and cared for.
Believe me you would be stunned because the funding nowadays is based on how many kids are taken from their homes, the more taken the bigger the funding. Yet legislation passed last year allowing foster care even more rights than they had before, which was already more than Grandma had while trying to raise a baby into childhood and the kids are taken from the only mother they know. Happens every day. Because blood relations “don’t count” as much as foster care, where the child is 3 X more likely to be abused than if left with Grandma. But because the funding is so whacked, this is not encouraged, even though it is a fact that relative care is cheaper, safer and a better outcome for the kid.
Family is a good term because if it had respect and support, it would go a long way towards cutting costs. I have no problem with commune living and believe it should be encouraged because pooling resources can make it better for all. But the “pooling” thing is problematic when non-paid work in this country, no matter how hard you work, is not “counted” as “contributing” anything. So grandma running the house while everyone works for a wage or does other things to enhance the group are “not doing anything” unless she works a corporate paid job. If she were a homemaker all her life, she cannot even bring in a meager Social Security check because “she never contributed” to the community for all the years she raised the next generation, volunteered with all those schools and community welfare people, or took care of ailing neighbors and extended family members because well, that is not “work” I guess it was just having a whole lot of fun changing her children, then her mother-in-law and then her husband’s diapers while her loved ones were dying.
See what I mean?
It is sick and sad to me that your practical and very workable solution is not even a blip on the horizon. But it would save a bundle in tax dollars in many ways, no question about that.
Cat in Seattle
And feet on the chickens!
Hoppin’ John without meat is still Hoppin’ John far as I’m concerned.
You did not upset me. I understand the deal, I was making a pointed joke is all. Not aimed at the phrase, just showing that it is important to know what is really going on with the poor. It is hard down here to figure out how to make ends meet when the pie is sliced up so the poor get the sliver, the rich get 4/5ths of it, and the middle class gets the “rest”. Then those of us left with the slivers fight and blame one another for what crumb they get without realizing they only got an f-ing sliver to begin with.
It is all good! the cat food allegory is a good start.
Love, Cat in Seattle
Hard to hang ‘em up with no feets. *g*
Thanks for the elaboration and also to you, PW, for the keeping this topic in fore.
I don’t know where most of you are situated with retirement savings, but a relative just went from a three room “apartment” with galley kitchen, to a “dormitory,” room with private bath and three squares a day in a community dining area, $1,200 a month to $2,800 a month for the more extensive and needed elder care. This facility is in the small community where I grew up and almost everyone local still really care about one another and about the elderly.
I am fortunate to have extended family and caring neighbors in the area.
just dawned on me, Peterson is Guy Grand. gee,thanks Ezra
Mornin’ All
headed out, catch you hippies later
Off to do the stuff I can’t or don’t wanna do during the week.
Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.
Gipsy Kings
Thank you, España, for turning me on to flamenco.
Namaste
I’ve been calling him “That Idiot Ezra” for a long, long time.
That is what Petey says. Those other goals are of course world domination. Also Full Spectrum Information Control is necessary to conquer the world. The Corporation For Public Policy was Pete’s idea to sell US warmongering. Pete was a major Irak war cheerleader along with his neo-con CFR.
This expands the “mockingbird” program to eliminate US freedom of the Press. But Pete has been part of every bankster fraud as well such as the AIG swindle. Then there was the insurance from WTC 7. Pete got $600 million, about $200,000 per murder on 9-11. That was a sweet investment for Pete. I doubt if he paid any taxes on that.
Actually it’s worse. According to the annual brochure I get from the social security administration, you will receive 25% less than full retirement benefits if you retire at age 62. That is based on full retirement at 66 years of age, not 70. If you wait until 70 to retire the benefit increases to a maximum of 8% per year above the full benefit at age 66, depending on when you were born.
If they raise the retirement age to age 70 for full benefits, it could actually decrease your benefits by as much as 8% per year, based on the current formula, and that’s on top of the 25% reduction for early retirement at 62.
“Professionals” like Ezra Klein are flat out dumb. Here’s why:
The cynical class war that people like Peterson and Rubin have been waging against the general public only benefits a handful of people in this country.
It’s not the top 10% vs the bottom 90% or even the top 1% vs the bottom 99%. Mostly it’s the top 0.01% vs the bottom 99%.
And guess what, Klein isn’t in that top 0.01% club. He’s selling out himself and his childrens futures for a handful of Mr Petersons magic beans.
Thanks. I guess the 25% figure is from SSA under the current regime if you take SS early at 62. I could only find a statement by Altmann on Social Security Works website, stating that benefits decrease by 6 to 7 percent for every year they raise the retirement age. I am guessing the decrease is due to the cost of each year you did not receive the benefit you otherwise would have if you had retired at the earlier full retirement age.
Sadly very True – our two faced leader indeed is trying to sell Peterson via Klein.
Perhaps we can give Ezra Klein’s comments – - – - – - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/pete_peterson_speaks.html – - – - on the Daily Beast – - – http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-29/pete-peterson-is-the-george-soros-of-budget-hawks/ – - – article a pass as being just a bit naive – given Peterson’s current activity and his money spending being solely focused on cutting entitlements.
But I will wait until I see the other Peterson ideas in a pass/fail recommendation vote coming out of the commission before I will believe Peterson is about more than screwing the non-rich.
But the “liberal press” has been busy with its billionaire owners/advertisers – Kleins comments on Peterson coming only a few days after the David Koch New York Magazine piece: – - – -http://nymag.com/news/features/67285/
Getting out of a depression is only necessary for the middle class, those on the edge, and those interested in good government. It has no effect on Mr. Obama’s lifestyle, the extent to which the military, armed federal agencies, lobbyists and the paraphernalia of government are at his beck and call. It will have no effect on his seven-figure life-style after he leaves office.
Depression, in fact, enhances the power of Peterson and his peers. Employees are easier to hire, fire and intimidate; they cost less, they accept fewer benefits. They may contribute less as they worry and literally and figuratively tighten their belts, but since their jobs are destined to be outsourced or sent offshore, that’s a short term inconvenience. Besides, men like Peterson know that they alone are the prime creative movers of their businesses; he drives the boat, everyone else just pulls an oar and follows him. Depression may slow his rate of enrichment, but not if he can take more of a smaller pie; anyway, he’ll still grow faster than everyone else.
Most importantly, depression narrows the concentration of everyone but a few. Frank Capra demonstrated that in his bank run scene in It’s a Wonderful Life. (Its fantasy lay in its outcome, not in its description of small town life.) Citizens panicked, demanded their money, and took a fraction of it as full payment in order to meet their daily needs. When the pittance they received in lieu of their savings ran out, the townsfolk had to borrow from or work for Mr. Potter. Meanwhile, Potter calmly and ruthlessly bought up everything in town he didn’t already own, except for the Bailey Building & Loan.
Not every town is a Bedford Falls, though, and George Baileys are hard to come by. Mr. Peterson is counting on it.
The current law leads to full benefits at 67. If you retire you can only make $14,160. Otherwise, you pay back $1 for every $2 you earn. That means you only get full early retirement if you earn LESS than minimum wage, and punishes you for making more ($2-$1).
But assume, you have retired today at 62 with 70% (it used to be 80%) of your 67 year benefit, you must are responsible for your health insurance until age 65. And the money paid for medical is COUNTED as income toward the $14,160.
In a situation like this with a benefit on average of $800 a month, you have to work to pay medical, but not make minimum wage. Sounds like a plan designed for the “company town.”
By the way, rich people can get a million dollars a day in dividends, enterest, etc. and none of that is part of the $14,160 limit. They get their full Social Security, while the janitor loses part of his when bucked up to $8.
The details are confusing, even exasperating at present. And this is just the current deal.
A country with guts would attack Social Security to MAKE IT BETTER?
Why do we currently have the HIGHEST retirement of any civilized nation? They are carrying torches in Europe because of proposals to go from 60 to 62, but nobody is over 65.
The percentage of benefits vs. wages is extremely poor in this country in the upper third of recipients and should be raised.
We musct separate a disability program from a retirement program, because it has Social Security to pay for worker accidents and abuse, and it is now a huge portion of Social Security expenses, including subsidies for “diagnosed” attention deficit children at $440 a month.
We must pass a law banning the commercial with the power wheelchairs skittering around with seniors who are less than goal models.
BUT WAIT, the commission will also “fix” Medicare. Easy enough for them, raise the eligibility age a couple years and keep people in limbo longer, not able to make enough money to pay healthcare. And they will raise the current $96 a month Medicare Part B fee (even with Part B, 75% of doctor’s won’t accept you, you pay $1,000 for each hospital trip, and 80% of doctor bills.)
It is all in how you present the decrease that an increase in the normal retirement age represents.
The magic factors are 5/12 after 36 months and 5/9 per month for first 36 months early – so age 66 is 5/9 times 36, or 20%, plus 12 times 5/12, or 5% away from age 62, making age 62 benefit 25% less than the benefit at age 66, and 30% less from retirement at age 67.
I really have given up on the calculation of “up to 20%” additional deduction that David quotes for an increase in the retirement age.
I can get close by assuming he is speaking about a 3 year increase to 70 which adds 15% to the age 62 reduction from age 67 factor of 30%, so one receives 55% rather than 70% of the “normal retirement benefit” – or a reduction of 22.4% from current law once Reagan’s 67 is fully phased in (age 69 – a two year increase – is a 14% reduction). I do not believe folks are actually using actuarial equivalents from some mortality table as that would blow even the geek minded away.
So I am left to guess at what “up to” refers to. :-)
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm
Current law is 30% and it used to be 20% before the 80s “final solution.”
I guess the original commission wasn’t really final, so we shoould call the new one “The Final Final Solution.”
OK – it seems like the commission is suggesting new retirement reduction factors for the months early after the first 5 years (the 5/12 and 5/9 monthly factors remain for the 67 minus 62 = 5 years). For months earlier that 60 months before early retirement the reduction would be 4.5/12 per month – making for the “up to 20%” number.
I sure wish I could find a source for this other than other folks that I respect using this factor. In any case, that appears to be the math:
5/9 per month for first 36, 5/12 per month for months 37 to 60, and 4.5/12 per month for next 36 months of being early relative to what ever age is set as the “normal retirement age”. Age 62 is retained as the earliest age to begin payments without regard to what the “normal retirement age” is.
good point – but the 20% reduction that is in the article takes that into account
RA=Age at which worker starts receiving benefits
A=Statutorily-Defined “Retirement Age” of 65
B=Statutorily-Defined “Retirement Age” of 67
C=Statutorily-Defined “Retirement Age” of 70
“65-67″ =Percent decrease from 65-67
“67-70″ =Percent decrease from 67-70
“65-70″ =Percent decrease from 65-70
Then:
RA….B=65…C=67…..D=70..65-67..67-70..65-70
62….$800….$700….$565..12.5%..19.3%..29.4%
63….$867….$750….$610..13.5%..18.7%..29.6%
64….$933….$800….$655..14.3%..18.1%..29.8%
65..$1,000….$867….$700..13.3%..19.3%..30.0%
66..$1,080….$933….$750..13.6%..19.6%..30.6%
67..$1,160..$1,000….$800..13.8%..20.0%..31.0%
68..$1,240..$1,080….$867..12.9%..19.7%..30.1%
69..$1,320..$1,160….$933..12.1%..19.6%..29.3%
70..$1,400..$1,240..$1,000..11.4%..19.4%..28.6%
The dollar amounts are based on a hypothetical worker who would be eligible for $1,000/month benefit at the statutorily-defined “Retirement Age.” The percentage reductions are the same for all workers irrespective of their earnings. 65 is the statutorily-defined “Retirement Age” for beneficiaries born prior to 1938; 67 for beneficiaries born 1960 or later; and 70, the age proposed by House Minority Leader, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)- this is his chart which uses the new 4.5/12 reduction factor for months after the first 60. Although the statutorily-defined “Retirement Age” is increasing to age 67, the earliest age at which benefits can be claimed, remains age 62. This chart assumes that the earliest age at which benefits can be claimed will remain 62 even if the statutorily-defined “Retirement Age” is raised to age 70.