Browse By

Clinton Foundation Jumps in Bed With Billionaire Peter G. Peterson

After the death of “The Can Kicks Back” (a fake “movement” of millennials against Social Security and the social safety net that was actually run by rich middle-aged and elderly white men), billionaire Peter G. Peterson needed another fake enterprise using young people as puppets to praise budget cuts, slam social programs and praise the statesmanlike wisdom of billionaire Peter G. Peterson. Cue “Up To Us,” a new fake millenial “movement.”

The Up To Us Twitter Page is not reflective of a mass movement with less than 700 followers

Despite a large publicity budget and more than 900 articles of media coverage, the “Up to Us” fake-millenial organization is not very popular, with fewer than 700 Twitter followers and just 48 subscribers on YouTube.

But then, the goal is not real popularity. The goal is to create the appearance of popularity for budget-cutting, social-safety-net-trimming policies so that lawmakers will go along with the plan. That appearance can’t succeed without young puppets. To find the young puppets billionaire Peter G. Peterson is playing with these days, visit and look for the “Advisory Council.” That’s a spiffy-sounding title meant to reward soul-selling youth with job-winning prospects, but it’s almost immediately apparent that the group is stabled from within the Peter G. Peterson universe of billionaire-funded pro-Peterson organizations. For just one example, take puppet Ben Ritz, who before he fronted for the fake-young-person’s “Up To Us” worked at the Economic Policy Institute, a group funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and the Concord Coalition, founded by Peter G. Peterson. He now is a paid staffer for the Bipartisan Policy Center, which is also funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. As in past schemes, the young puppets get exposure, selling their youthful identity to Peterson as a useful front.

Is there a political agenda?” asks one line in the Up To Us FAQ. The answer that Up To Us provides to its own question is “Absolutely no. The purpose of Up to Us is to raise awareness of our country’s long-term fiscal challenges and how they could affect our economic future, and to encourage students to make their voices heard on these critical issues. The competition is the product of a partnership between three nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations dedicated to engaging the next generation of leaders on important issues.”

No political agenda? That would be why Up To Us contains the following text elsewhere on its website:

“Candidates should talk about the important issues voters are concerned about, ranging from healthcare to tax reform. Let them know you care about the national debt by signing the pledge.” (

“My participation in Up to Us as an executive member of the Global Development and Progress club definitely took me back into political activism.” (

“Myth 1: ‘We can fix the debt by raising taxes on the wealthy’

Truth 1: According to the Tax Policy center, if we wanted to solve the debt problem by raising taxes on only those making over $250,000, the top rate would need to be over 100%. Therefore our debt is too large to solely count on raising taxes.” (

“#SocialSecurity trust funds projected to be depleted just 18 years from now” (

“The money we’re borrowing isn’t even going to be spent on things that strengthen our future like infrastructure, education, and scientific research; it’s going to be spent on entitlement programs growing at an unchecked rate.” (

Then there’s a pledge that Up To Us tried to get young people in campuses across the country to sign and send to members of Congress on a “My Two Cents Day” coordinated from a national office but made to look in press releases as if it were a grassroots eruption (


Oh yes, that’s a political agenda right there. It’s Peter G. Peterson’s decades-long agenda of using talk about the national debt to be rid of “entitlements” programs — like food for hungry kids, or Social Security benefits for old people — or, better yet, to privatize them so that for-profit businesses can skim fees off the top.

All this is nothing new. What is new is the participation of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Remember that bit of text about how “The competition is the product of a partnership between three nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations dedicated to engaging the next generation of leaders on important issues”? The thing is, there really are just two independent organizations. The first organization is the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which is funding both Up To Us and the second named organization “Net Impact”. Without the third organization, every piece of this “Up To Us” scheme could be traced back to funding from the billionaire Peter G. Peterson and his political foundation.

The only organizational participant in Up To Us that isn’t funded by the billionaire Peter G. Peterson is the Clinton Foundation — formally named the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

What is the foundation named after former Democratic Party president Bill Clinton and current Democratic Party presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton doing propping up a fake-populist anti-safety-net scheme?

Since both presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and past president Bill Clinton appeared to speak at an Up To Us event in March 2015 (link), no media outlet appears to have covered the Pete Peterson/Clinton Foundation link.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!