Mother Talkers

A Billionaire's Sage Advice

Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:05:28 AM PDT

With so many charities, non-profit organizations, political candidates, family, friends and others asking him for money, billionaire Peter G. Peterson wrote an admirable column in Newsweek on how he plans to give away his fortune to tackle the country's most pressing political and economic problems. He simply wants today's children to have a shot at the American Dream as he and his Greek immigrant father had.

I have lived the American Dream—I went to college, worked in the corporate world, served in government and became an investment banker. And that led to a second turning point, on June 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. That was the day the Blackstone Group—a private-equity, asset-management and financial-advisory firm that I cofounded—went public. In an hour I became an instant billionaire.

What to do with so much money? I have much more than enough, and there seems little prospect that I can take it with me. So again I turn to my father's example. When he had built a modest net worth, he gave generously to his old home in Greece and to the less fortunate in his beloved new home. Tears would come to his eyes when he sang "God Bless America." He so loved America for its possibilities.

I believe today that those possibilities are shrinking, endangering the American Dream. Personal myopia, political cowardice, fiscal fantasy and journalistic neglect are all at work. So I have chosen to put much of my wealth ($1 billion over the next several years and much of my remaining estate) into a new foundation, one that I hope will explain the undeniable, unsustainable and yet politically untouchable long-term challenges we face. Headed by The Honorable David M. Walker, who served as the comptroller general of the United States from 1998 to 2008, the foundation will propose workable solutions and build up the public will to put them into effect. I cannot think of anything more important than trying in this way to preserve the possibilities of the American Dream for my children's and grandchildren's generations, and generations yet to come.

The three problems as he sees them are the aging of the baby boomers and unattainable costs of social security and Medicare, record trade deficits passed onto future generations, and our staggering health care costs, which offer neither the best services nor coverage.

These challenges all require sacrifice. That means everyone. We fat cats will have to pay more taxes. The government will have to spend less. Everyone will have to save more. I'm not sure if we remember how to give up something for the long-term general good. Nor do we hear calls for sacrifice from our leaders. Our lawmakers are enablers, either joining us in the state of denial or trying to anesthesize us. But if we can learn to face the future realistically, everyone will benefit from a more robust, sustainable economy.

Pointing out that the "Greatest Generation" overcame a depression, Peterson is confident that today's youth will find solutions to our most pressing problems. First, we need to educate them on what those challenges are.

  • ::

We need to go where the young people are: new media, bloggers, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, MTV, and networks and Web sites that have not even been invented, and that is what my foundation will try to do. We will sponsor the production of films that educate people about the perils America faces (I have been impressed with what Al Gore accomplished with "An Inconvenient Truth"). We will have youth summits to get young leaders engaged in the process. Maybe someone should develop an AAYP, an American Association of Young People, to counteract the lobbying power of the American Association of Retired Persons. There are, of course, many other groups we must reach. How best do we energize the business community? Tom Friedman of The New York Times called us MIAs, "missing in action" on these daunting challenges. We have a huge stake in tomorrow's economy. How do we convince the media that the future is worth covering?

These challenges have hung over our economy for years. Others have tried to sound the alarm. I know that the odds of success are daunting. Yet given what is at stake and what I owe this remarkable country, I, and we, have no alternative but to try. As we move forward, we need to remind ourselves of the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor who was instrumental in the resistance movement against Nazism. "The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children," he said.

It is time we become moral and worthy ancestors.

I loved his idea for making another movie like An Inconvenient Truth. When my mother-in-law in El Salvador told me she was looking forward to watching Una Verdad Inconveniente in a movie theater there, I knew the information surrounding global warming had gone mainstream. Hopefully, Peterson can use his fortune to do the same when it comes to healthcare, our trade deficits and most pressing issues. Good for him.

Tags: billionaire, Newsweek, Peter G. Peterson (all tags)

Permalink | 17 comments

  • first up... (0 / 0)

    fund lobbyists for universal single payer health care. The "forces" that don't want to see ANY changes in health care are already at work.  

    Scholarships for college. The credit crunch is going to  hit student lenders hard .Here in PA 3 lenders including PHEA closed their doors. In the 50s and 60s not everyone could get student loans and parents needed good credit. I think we are going to see a return to those days. And tax credits don't cut it, when tuition at state schools keeps going up.How can we compete in a global world if we can't afford to educate our kids?

    • I totally agree. (0 / 0)

      A whole generation of young are entering what is for all intents and purposes a form of indentured servitude.  If we made loans more difficult, though, the vast majority of young people would not be able to manage higher education at all.  

      I also agree that the time is now to start paving the way for universal health care.  Its something I've said for the past 5 or more years.  Not only do we need lobbyist, we need people to really market the idea...get it out there, so people aren't so frightened when the other side starts trashing the idea.

  • You know, some of the challenges (0 / 0)

    are, indeed, challenging...some, however, could be easily remedied.  Social Security could be made solvent for an additional 75 years or more simply by lifting the cap a bit on the amount taxed.  We could nearly balance our budget by merely rolling back the tax cuts that GW gave.  Come on...did we all really feel that taxed and oppressed back in the 90's?

    I agree about universal coverage and the cost of higher education.  These are going to present tremendous challenges, and frankly, we're going to have to get past whether an idea is everything we wanted.  You know, though, I think we need to keep reminding ourselves that these are things that could be done...provided we have the political will.  Speaking of political will, we'd be able to manage a lot of our troubles if we spent less on defense/military expenses.  

    • I totally agree (0 / 0)

      Health care is going to be enormously difficult to reform at this point.  I don't know of anyone in the health care system who believes the current system can be fixed, only replaced.  But the entrenched dysfunctional for-profit system has the money to fight change.

      What shocks me most is how routinely the faculty and invited speakers in my classes dismiss the US system with a wave of the hand and a "well, everybody knows the US system is f*****, so we'll use an example from another country."  The resignation is just beyond depressing.

  • universal health care, scholarships for college (0 / 0)

    and mandatory employer-based retirement. I know a lot of small business owners are going to squawk at me saying that, but here in Australia, we're entering the third decade of mandatory superannuation - defined contribution retirement funds where it's obligatory for the employer to contribute 9.5% of salary package to a retirement fund. Employers usually advertise salary packages as base salary and the 9.5%. It's supported by a decent system of Social Security for those whose superannuations are inadequate.

    It's been extremely successful - minimised the burden of retirement on the taxpayer to sustainable levels, forced people to save for their retirement and drastically cut rates of elderly poverty.

  • I just find it interesting (0 / 0)

    the # of very wealthy people that are stepping up and doing these sorts of things (Gates, Buffett, etc.) feels like a throwback to an earlier era of Rockefellers and Roosevelts.  Maybe the very welathy have always given back in some way, but now more than ever it seems that people are starting to step up and say, "I can't trust anyone else to do it right, so I'm going to do it myself".  

    There's a whole thesis in there that begs discussion, which I will assign myself to research in my spare time.

    --R

    • what's interesting (0 / 0)

      is that the philanthropic efforts of Rockerfellers, Carnegies, MacArthurs et al coincided with the rise of the first wave of Progressive politicians (such as T Roosevelt). Would that history is repeating itself, or at least rhyming (to paraphrase Mark Twain) and this generation of philanthropists coincides with another progressive movement!

      • I'm no historian (0 / 0)

        but I believe the rise of both progressive politics and philanthropy were a response to the excesses and inequities of the age of the robber baron industrialists.  History indeed.

        • inward and outward responses (0 / 0)

          I find it fascinating that these individuals (past and present) would awaken to this inequality and say, "I'll fix it." I know in Rockefeller's case, it had a lot to with a very strict Christian upbringing and the idea that you tithe your earnings to the church, but I find Gates' evolution in particular to be fascinating.

          We're getting there again, in terms of wage inequality and excesses...

    • But...in the long run, (0 / 0)

      is this good?  Sure, its great that these people are using their fortunes to help, but won't an argument be made against government help because the "private sector" is handling it?  And, couldn't a few billionaires giving away their wealth be used as an excuse to keep from taxing such people at higher rates?

      • I don't think it has to be an either/or (0 / 0)

        I would be interested in seeing if higher taxes result in lower charitable giving; I remember reading the striking fact that JFK was considered a sop to the rich folk because he cut the top end tax rate to something like 60%.

        • Yes...during the 50's (0 / 0)

          the tax rate was around 85 or 90 percent in the highest earning bracket.  

          It shouldn't have to be an "either/or"...but, knowing how politics is in this country, I'm just waiting to hear this as an excuse.  Hell, I've already heard it.  It was heard often in the aftermath of Katrina.

          • november matters (0 / 0)

            I think you can look at what Gates et al are doing and either say, "hey, those rich guys have it all locked up, we can forget about everything we were doing", or "hey, those rich guys have figured out how to do this -- what can we learn from them to make our programs work better".  

            --R

      • seems that the long run is the better scenario (0 / 0)

        I worry more that in the short term people make those excuses.  Long term, I'd think that demonstrated impact would show the philanthropists the winners and force the government to examine why their programs aren't producing the bang for the buck.  

        This assumes that the Gates Foundation programs are successful.  Based on what I've seen thus far, they are headed in the right direction.  

        --R

        • Don't get me wrong... (0 / 0)

          I think what Gates, Turner, Buffett, and others like them are doing is magnificent.  And as much as my husband would hate to hear me say it, Gates is to be commended.  There's much that he says and does that I really, really agree with.  

          I'm not holding my breath about the government, however.  Why fund education when there's new missile systems to spend billions of dollars on?

      • what exactly (0 / 0)

        makes you think that the heads of huge corporations aren't the government? ;)

Permalink | 17 comments