That was how the Peter G. Peterson Foundation was described in a New York Times article today. It's not that I would ever question the motives of Mr. Peterson, an incredibly wealthy Wall Street investor who has often made incorrect assertions in his efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare. I do however question why the NYT would see it appropriate to attribute such noble motives to Mr. Peterson and his institute but not to anyone else in Washington policy debates. Speaking for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, my own institution, we have a staff that works extremely hard for pay that I'm sure is much less than the norm at the Peterson Foundation. If the Peterson Foundation's working description in the NYT is "increasing awareness about the nation's economic challenges," then CEPR should get something like "exposing efforts to mislead the public about important economic issues." I am waiting to see that one in print. Btw, this article also buys the line about people aged 70 1/2 being forced to sell stock at a loss in order to meet the rules on 401(k)/IRA withdrawals. My bet is that there is not a single person in the country in this boat since any person of this age will have a substantial portion of their account in bonds and/or money funds. Therefore we have the absurd situation of both candidates vying to fix a non-existent problem.
--Dean Baker
