On Sunday the Pete Peterson Foundation took out an ad in the Washington Post touting its upcoming "Fiscal Summit," which will feature speeches by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Ryan and Alan Simpson.  Panels will be moderated by Gwen Ifill, George Will and others.

The hook is that Peterson is promoting a "Solutions Initiative," which in part involves giving money to different organizations to develop plans that focus on "solutions."

The grantees are the American Enterprise Institute, Bipartisan Policy Center, Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, Heritage Foundation and the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network.

On the page next to the ad is the Post's usual Topic A op-ed feature, where they get short pieces on a single topic from different writers. The topic for Sunday was deficits and debt. The Post turned over the feature to Peterson:

With U.S. debt projected to grow more than 275 percent by 2035, the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation asked a range of think tanks to find ways to address the nation's long-term budget challenges. Below are details from plans that will be unveiled at a fiscal summit the foundation is hosting Wednesday in Washington.

In case you were wondering, the pieces in the Post came from all the Peterson grantees: American Enterprise Institute, Bipartisan Policy Center, Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, Heritage Foundation and the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network.

So did Peterson buy the ad and the op-ed page, or did the Post throw that in for free? We know the Post has been willing to run articles from Peterson's Fiscal Times media outlet--with little to no explanation for readers who might be curious as to Peterson's long-standing political views on these issues. Are they doing the same with their Sunday op-ed page?

The subhead sums up the point of USA Today's lead story today (2/14/11) about Barack Obama's budget proposal:

Obama Proposes Cuts to Trim Deficit; GOP, Others Want More

The piece by Richard Wolf and Mimi Hall begins, "President Obama will send Congress a 2012 budget today that would trim the budget deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next decade, but Republicans and nonpartisan budget experts are already saying that's not enough." And that's how the story is framed: You've got the White House vs. the Republicans, and "nonpartisan budget experts" who agree with the Republicans.

"We're going to make tough choices," promises the White House budget director--who is countered by USA Today: "Those choices aren't as tough, however, as the ones made by Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission in December." Two sources--described a second time as "nonpartisan budget experts," in case we missed it the first time--concur: Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, accuses the White House of "a political unwillingness to tackle the tough issues," while Robert Bixby, director of the Concord Coalition, described as "a fiscal watchdog group," charges that "the entitlement and tax reform agenda will apparently be deferred yet again."

So everybody who's not a partisan or an amateur, apparently, believes that Obama's cuts don't go far enough? Of course that's not true; USA Today's "experts" actually occupy a narrow strip of ideological terrain, with both the groups they represent receiving funding from billionaire deficit hawk Pete Peterson. The Concord Coalition is a Peterson creation; the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in addition to its backing from Peterson, is part of the New America Foundation, whose "Leadership Council"--people who give them at least $25,000 a year and as a result "participate in the intellectual life of the Foundation in numerous ways"--has included executives from such companies as Wal-Mart, Goldman Sachs and a variety of other financial industry firms.

It's very clear that such entities have a definition of the kind of "tough" that would be desirable that is very different from the "tough" that would be advocated by equally nonpartisan experts at a group like the Economic Policy Institute, which is critical of the president's budget for being too quick to cut spending during an economic crisis.

But the only other sources in the story, besides the White House and the Peterson-affiliated deficit hawks, are House Speaker John Boehner--who says Obama's budget "will continue to destroy jobs by spending too much, borrowing too much and taxing too much"--and "150 economists" rounded up by Boehner who insist in an open letter that "to support real economic growth and support the creation of private-sector jobs, immediate action is needed to rein in federal spending." That one could find far more than 150 economists who would give you the standard economic line that cutting federal spending at a time of depressed demand is not a way to create jobs, private-sector or otherwise, is not even hinted at by USA Today.

Billionaire Pete Peterson has spent a lot of money trying to convince people that Social Security is a serious threat to the country's finances. And it's a message that the corporate media love to echo. So when Peterson's group decided to hold "town hall" meetings to promote fiscal austerity by cutting Social Security and Medicare, one would have guessed that the media would give it some attention.

But a funny thing happened this weekend at these "America Speaks" events. Members of the public, after being given what Roger Hickey calls "misleading background information about the federal deficit and economic options to achieve fiscal 'balance' and future prosperity," got a chance to weigh in on what they thought the most prudent course of action might be. As Thomas Frank points out in the Wall Street Journal today (6/30/10; subscription required), the results were likely a huge disappointment to Peterson:

The event took place as scheduled last Saturday, with thousands of citizens meeting in different cities. They duly absorbed a booklet alerting them to the danger of deficits. They deliberated. And then something funny happened on the way to the consensus.

According to a preliminary compilation of results, participants supported "an extra 5 percent tax" on incomes of greater than $1 million per year (by 68 percent) and an increase in the corporate income tax rate (59 percent). They thought a "carbon tax" was a good idea (64 percent) as well as a "securities transactions tax" (61 percent). On Social Security, austerity was nowhere in sight as 85 percent backed raising the limit on taxable income, and only a miserable 27 percent thought that we should "create personal savings accounts." Majorities favored cutting defense spending and expressed support for further recovery measures even if they increase the deficit.

Raising taxes on the wealthy, a carbon tax, cutting military spending--who ARE these people? It sounds a political agenda that most pundits would tell you is politically impossible. (It also happens to be what a lot of people want, but never mind that.)

Given the media's general enthusiasm for Peterson's propaganda on austerity and Social Security, it's striking how little coverage these town halls have received. But it's hard not to conclude that the public rejection of the media's conventional wisdom is the explanation. A few weeks ago, Washington Post columnist David Broder (5/2/10) lamented the fact that Peterson was apparently not having as much impact on the political discussion as the Tea Party movement: "Peterson's foundation could do the country a favor by uncovering a credible populist Republican who will buck his party's orthodoxy and take that message of fiscal responsibility to the country."

Instead, Peterson's people are trying to spread their message--but the public apparently wants something else entirely.

At the end of 2009, the Washington Post published an article that was produced by the Fiscal Times. As FAIR noted in an Action Alert (1/6/10):

The article, headlined "Support Grows for Tackling Nation's Debt" (12/31/09), was a product of the Fiscal Times, described in an accompanying note as "an independent digital news publication reporting on fiscal, budgetary, healthcare and international economics issues." More accurately, it's a propaganda outlet created and funded by Peter G. Peterson, a Wall Street billionaire and Nixon administration cabinet member who has long used his wealth to promote cuts in Social Security and other entitlement programs.

That Post's Fiscal Times piece was the subject of intense criticism, which the Post's ombud eventually addressed. As FAIR summed it up (1/13/10), ombud Andrew Alexander criticized the paper for a "glaring lack of transparency with its readers" by not disclosing the Fiscal Times' connection to Peterson and his interest in the issues it covers. Alexander added that the piece "was not sufficiently balanced," and that publishing a story so closely aligned with the agenda of the funder of the project  "was inviting suspicion about its motives."

Yesterday  the Post was at it again (6/20/10), publishing another Fiscal Times piece extolling work that Peterson is closely aligned with. Under the headline "Labor Leader, Chief Executive Team Up to Reduce the U.S. Deficit," Post readers are treated to a soft profile of two members (an "unlikely duo") of the White House's deficit reduction commission. Did the piece entertain serious criticism of the ideas being advanced so far by the commission (cutting Social Security, most notably)? Hardly--here's about as close as they got:

A debate is raging in Congress and among economists about whether this is the right time to start reducing deficits. Many liberal groups worried about high unemployment argue that the economy is still so weak that the government should keep spending and deficits high to prevent a double-dip recession. But lawmakers in both parties are balking at new stimulus spending, and some economists argue that the deficit needs to be reined in sooner rather than later.

What about disclosure, then? The Post offered a note at the top of the piece, mentioning that the reporters "work for the Fiscal Times, an independent news organization that specializes in fiscal and economic matters. It is funded by Peter G. Peterson, who separately supports groups that advocate for long-term debt reduction."

Ah, I get it.  Peterson has spent many millions of dollars warning about Social Security's threat to the nation's finances. But the news outlet he organized and bankrolls to make these arguments in journalistic form is separate from his long-standing political interest in these topics. Huh.

You know, the fact of the matter is we have to change how we do things. We are on an imprudent and unsustainable path in a number of ways. You talk about debtors' prisons, we used to have debtors' prisons, now bankruptcy is no taint! Bankruptcy is an exit strategy! Our society and our culture has changed. We need to get back to the opportunity, we need to move away from entitlement, we need to provide reasonable risk but we need to hold people accountable when they do imprudent things. It's pretty fundamental.

--David Walker, CEO of the Peterson Foundation, an organization set up by billionaire Pete Peterson to promote cuts in Social Security and Medicare (CNBC's Squawk Box, 6/10/10; MichaelMoore.com, 6/11/10)

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigor, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

--Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

The New York Times (11/23/09) has an editorial on its front page today disguised as a news story.

Appearing under the headline "Federal Government Faces Balloon in Debt Payments," Times business reporter Edmund Andrews makes an impassioned plea for the neo-Hooverist economics popular in corporate media: Claiming that "the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners in default on their mortgages," Andrews maintains that "there is little doubt that the United States' long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to postpone."

There's not a lot of news in this ostensible news article; it appears to be largely based on the Office of Management and Budget's Mid-Session Review, which came out on August 25. And many of the facts derived therefrom are dubious or misleading; for example, the piece claims that "government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone"; actually, gross federal debt is estimated at $12.9 trillion in 2009, and was $8.9 trillion in 2007; that's a far cry from almost doubling.

What's not in the piece or in the government forecast is anything to back up the idea that the federal debt situation is akin to an overstretched homeowner about to default on a mortgage; as economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 11/23/09) points out, "There is no evidence presented in this article that the rise in interest rates will place the U.S. government in a situation where it will be unable to pay its bills and no one cited in this article makes such a claim."

But Andrews' piece is not really about evidence so much as it about the personal intuition that just as individuals need to tighten their belts in hard times, so too should the federal government.  As Andrews writes:

Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode.

It's natural to conclude that frugality is the necessary penance to pay for profligacy--even more natural for Edmund Andrews, who wrote a whole book about his family's debt woes.  Applying that intuition to federal fiscal policy, however, is disastrous--that's why Herbert Hoover is supposed to be your model of how not to respond to a financial crisis.

And if you talk to economists, chances are that at least some of them will point out to you that deficit reduction is not what the United States needs right now.  For example, you could talk to economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who writes in the same edition of the paper (11/23/09), "Most economists I talk to believe that the big risk to recovery comes from the inadequacy of government efforts: The stimulus was too small, and it will fade out next year, while high unemployment is undermining both consumer and business confidence." (Give the Times credit for including some op-ed antidote to its front-page poison.)

But as Andrews' piece is an editorial only appearing by accident on the front page, he doesn't feel obligated to quote anyone who might question his instinct for austerity.  Instead he talks to the Concord Coalition, the vehicle billionaire Pete Peterson uses to express his opposition to government spending, and to a manager of the world's largest bond fund, who warns us against eating our nuts.

The piece closes by quoting the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee--IDed by Andrews as a group of "private-sector...market experts"--as saying that inflation ought to be our big worry and "fiscal prudence" our watchword.  Who is this committee, actually? It's chaired by someone from JP Morgan Chase, its vice chair is from Goldman Sachs, and its members include a representative of Peterson's Blackrock group--among other agents of the world's financial elite.

Maybe Andrews thinks these folks have nothing but the best interests of the nation on their mind.  But before he issued a front-page call for deficit-cutting in the midst of the deepest slump since the Great Depression, maybe he could've gotten a second opinion.