Peter G. Peterson, the co-chairman of the private equity firm, The Blackstone Group, is also president of the  Concord Coalition , a bi-partisan group devoted to what it calls “fiscal responsibility,” which seems to be largely given to public advocacy of social security and medicare (entitlements) cuts.

I’m interested in Peterson, because of the way he keeps popping up into things.

First, as I noted in a blog post a couple of months back, he’s become the backer of the film, I.O.U.S.A., directed by Patrick Creadon, which is loosely based on the book, “Empire of Debt,” (Bonner & Wiggin, 2005).  I noted at the time the difference between the libertarian arguments of the book (which critiques the Federal Reserve) and the film’s noticeable silence on the Federal Reserve. In fact, the film spends a great deal of time on some of the very people who enabled the current debt crisis, including Alan Greenspan.

Second, I notice that Peterson has been using the film to argue that entitlement spending is out of control and needs to be cut back, etc. etc., an argument that progressive economist Dean Baker correctly calls morally bankrupt, given that this administration just bailed out some of the most irresponsible gamblers in the banking industry.

Third, I notice that Tim Geithner has given BlackRock three no-bid contracts to manage the Fed’s portfolio of troubled securities, according to a NY Times piece yesterday (April 27). BlackRock has close connections to Blackstone (where it was once the asset management division) and to the NY Fed.

That prompted me to do some digging around and I came across this interesting piece on Peterson, “A Crusader in Clover,” by John Hess at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting).

“While he is reticent about his [Peterson’s] income, Vanity Fair put his take-home in 1992 at $7 million, not an excessive sum for an investment banker of his rank. His partner Stephen Schwartzman, who is regarded in the financial press as the sparkplug of their firm, the Blackstone Group, said that year that investors in its venture fund should expect returns of 25 to 30 percent during the 1990s—again, not unreasonable, since the Dow Jones average rose more than 26 percent last year.

Such rates of return are, again, piquant, because Peterson has described the indexation of Social Security, which lately has raised benefits by roughly 3 percent a year, as “one of the greatest fiscal tragedies of American history.” Piquant? Wait. Peterson was at President Nixon’s side as his economic adviser and secretary of commerce when that “tragedy” was enacted in 1972. (Conservatives thought making the cost-of-living adjustment automatic would deter Congress from voting more generous benefits.)

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….”