Progressives really don't like the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. I mean really don't like them. They'd hire Grover Norquist as their accountant and let James Inhofe replace all their lightbulbs before chatting with the Petersonites. See here and here and here. And there's a reason for that: Progressives don't want to cut entitlements. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation does. People disagree.But beyond the disagreement is a suspicion of insincerity: The Peter G. Peterson Foundation claims to be worried about the long-term debt but seems a lot more interested in cutting entitlements than in raising taxes or reforming health care or slashing the defense budget. That suspicion, however, would be easy enough to disprove: If the Peter G. Peterson Foundation is really so concerned with long-term debt, it really could do more to clamp down on fiscal hypocrisy. Take Blanche Lincoln, who goes to great pains to self-identify as a deficit hawk and then turns around and cosponsors a bill to repeal the estate tax at a cost of $249.5 billion. Progressives don't have much credibility attacking the hypocrisy of this sort of thing because they're not honestly concerned with the debt so much as honestly appalled at the distributional consequences. It's hard to insincerely fling accusations of insincerity. But if the Peter G. Peterson Institute decided to fire on deficit hypocrisy, it would actually become harder to be a hypocrite. And if it was harder to be a hypocrite -- to simultaneously cultivate a reputation as a deficit hawk and help out rich contributors -- more politicians might just try and reduce the deficit. Everyone wins! Plus, a group that seemed genuinely deficit-oriented could find itself a lot more friends and build a lot more alliances than a group that seemed simply disgusted by entitlements. Even progressives can see the dangers of long-term debt, and appreciate the need for a couple watchdogs obsessed with its consequences. PETER G. PETERSON: YOU ARE OUR ONLY HOPE.
Progressives really don't like the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. I mean really don't like them. They'd hire Grover Norquist as their accountant and let James Inhofe replace all their lightbulbs before chatting with the Petersonites. See here and here and here. And there's a reason for that: Progressives don't want to cut entitlements. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation does. People disagree.But beyond the disagreement is a suspicion of insincerity: The Peter G. Peterson Foundation claims to be worried about the long-term debt but seems a lot more interested in cutting entitlements than in raising taxes or reforming health care or slashing the defense budget. That suspicion, however, would be easy enough to disprove: If the Peter G. Peterson Foundation is really so concerned with long-term debt, it really could do more to clamp down on fiscal hypocrisy. Take Blanche Lincoln, who goes to great pains to self-identify as a deficit hawk and then turns around and cosponsors a bill to repeal the estate tax at a cost of $249.5 billion. Progressives don't have much credibility attacking the hypocrisy of this sort of thing because they're not honestly concerned with the debt so much as honestly appalled at the distributional consequences. It's hard to insincerely fling accusations of insincerity. But if the Peter G. Peterson Institute decided to fire on deficit hypocrisy, it would actually become harder to be a hypocrite. And if it was harder to be a hypocrite -- to simultaneously cultivate a reputation as a deficit hawk and help out rich contributors -- more politicians might just try and reduce the deficit. Everyone wins! Plus, a group that seemed genuinely deficit-oriented could find itself a lot more friends and build a lot more alliances than a group that seemed simply disgusted by entitlements. Even progressives can see the dangers of long-term debt, and appreciate the need for a couple watchdogs obsessed with its consequences. 
