George Will Demolishes Robert Reich: 'You Are a Pyromaniac In a Field of Strawmen'
George Will on Sunday marvelously told liberal economist Robert Reich something that many conservatives have been dying to say for years.
During a fascinating Right vs. Left debate on ABC's This Week, after Reich predictably pined for higher income tax rates to solve all that ails us, Will struck back with the line of the weekend, "You are a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Can government, should government do what the congressman is doing and allow upward mobility, which stalled?
GEORGE WILL: Big government inevitably exacerbates the problem of inequality. Big government inevitably is a servant of the strong. I'll give you two examples. The tax code has been changed 4,500 times in the last decade. Every one of those times at the service of a group strong enough and attentive enough and wealthy enough to hire a Washington lawyer to represent them to game the tax code.
The welfare state exists to transfer wealth basically from the working young and retired elderly -- working young and middle aged to the retired elderly. The elderly are, according to the CBO study, the net worth of a family of a household on average, household headed by someone 65 years old or older is 47 times larger than that of the net worth of a household of someone 35 or younger. That's a record, and has doubled in the last five years. Big government is responsive to big, muscular interest groups.
That bears repeating: "The net worth of a family of a household on average, household headed by someone 65 years old or older is 47 times larger than that of the net worth of a household of someone 35 or younger."
While unwashed ne'erdowells in tents around the country carp and whine about income inequality, maybe they should pay far more attention to the various entitlement programs and tax codes created in the past 75 years that have consistently taken money from the young to give to the old.
This is a far more serious systemic problem in our society than the income inequality between the rich and the poor.
Not surprisingly, Reich didn't see it that way and instead brought out the same old tired strawmen the Left have been boring us with for decades:
ROBERT REICH: Well, I -- let's just be clear about the facts. I mean, right now, the top 1 percent is claiming in terms of their pay, a larger share of total income than has been at any time since before the Great Depression. And their tax rates -- and their tax rates are lower than they have been in 30 years.
You look at that period. I mean, George, you say that, you know, big -- rich people and big corporations have undue influence. Yes, I agree with you. But the answer is not to shrink government and not even to have government attempt to invest in education, in job training and all of the ways in which we traditionally have generated upward mobility. The answer is to get money out of politics, to make sure that those who are at the top reaches, that is both individuals and corporations, don't have the untoward influence they now have.
One final point. In the first three decades after the second world war, we had in this country much more of an equal distribution of the fruits of economic growth. And yet what happened? It turned out that in those days, the economy grew faster than it has grown since. There was, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whom nobody accused of being a socialist, a marginal tax rate on the top of 91 percent. I'm not advocating we go back to 91 percent. I'm just saying that for conservatives to say that we cannot tax the wealthy, when all of the nation's wealth and income, virtually speaking, is at the top, to invest in people and education and training and everything else we need to invest, it's absurd on its face.
Of course, what folks like Reich ignore is that when the top rate was 91 percent under Eisenhower, there were far more loopholes in the tax code thereby allowing the folks in the top bracket to pay less as a percentage of their income than they do today.
Additionally, the percentage upper earners paid of total taxes collected was far less in those days than it is now. Liberal economists and the media members that revere them always ignore this.
Not George Will:
WILL: You are a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen. No one is arguing against government investing in education. That's not --
CONGRESSMAN BARNEY FRANK (D-MASSACHUSETTS): Wrong. You guys are.
CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN (R-WISCONSIN): No, we're not.
WILL: No, we're not.
FRANK: I'll make the point.
WILL: Look, I'm not attacking the elderly. I am elderly.
(LAUGHTER)
WILL: I have -- five years ago when I turned 65, I got my Medicare card. I showed it to my doctor, he said, that's wonderful, George, now we'll send your bills to your children. I find that a regressive transfer of wealth, and the welfare state is full of them.
Indeed. And if the Left has its way, such transfer will only get more and more onerous.
In reality, the young people demonstrating all over the country should be protesting against this instead of financial institutions that actually have very little to do with their incomes or their futures.
It would be nice if the media would help them realize this, or isn't that the press's function anymore?
Those interested can watch the entire debate here or read it here.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Did anyone notice what that little weasel...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 8:45pm.
did at the very end to try and bolster the President's income inequality propaganda. He waited until the wrap up where he was the last one who spoke to try to link high executive salaries and the lack of increase in middle income earners wages as if somehow one has something to do with the other. Payroll is not a finite system where if someone makes alot it means someone has to be paid little. I think it waited til the end cause he knew Will or Ryan would jump on that in rebuttal if given the chance
I think you meant
Submitted by jakee308 on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 9:04pm.
zero sum system?
But actually it can be. If an Executive sucks millions out of a company's gross profit, that leaves less for a whole lot of stuff. Some of which would be increases for employees.
However IF the particular executive is responsible for the size of the gross profit in the first place then it is reasonable for him to have a disproportionate share of it.
This isn't usually the case. Many, many executives cause more problems for a company (granted that may be in real trouble already) or are unable to correct those problems that receive large salaries because they were under a contract.
This is where the problem lies; lack of negotiation about those contracts and the lack of performance clauses. Plus many of these executives look good on paper or had previous successes that aren't easily translatable to the new company.
Still; executive pay has gone up drastically while the employees pay has declined. In fact some executives have been applauded for introducing policies that have that as their aim to secure an increase in their bottom line.
The scenario you paint..
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 9:25pm.
where an executive basically loots the payroll of his own company for his own pockets is rare in a free market capitalist system or at least the company won't last too long. If that company's salaries are depressed more than other businesses in the same market due to unscrupulous bosses then the good employees will move to the other firms that pay fairly and that business will lose customers due to bad service and eventually fail unless salaries are made fair again. Its not always a smooth process but in the end capitalism rules (assuming no intervention by the government).
Your last paragraph is false.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 11:50pm.
"executive pay has gone up drastically while the employees pay has declined"
Even according to the AFL-CIO that is false. In the 80's it went from 47 to 1 to about 100 to one. In the 90's it went up to over 500 to 1 by the year 2000. But over the last decade it has gone down. Now the average CEO to worker pay is less than 300 to 1.
Over the last 3 decades, average worker salary has increased by about 100%. CEO pay has increased more, but to say employees pay has declined is false.
We Are The 53%
Will's comment probably
Submitted by jakee308 on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 8:56pm.
went over Reich's head.
but then again....
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 9:36pm.
everything goes over Reich's head. ;-)
I've got cats that are bigger
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 9:51pm.
I've got cats that are bigger than Robert B. Reeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhh!!! And smarter too. And he's sitting there with Bawney Fwank?? This is embarrassing - no wonder the libs are so loony - with people like this 'representing' them.
Acapella, anyone?
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 10:06pm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jfT1XUjBy4
Nice to see Will remembering
Submitted by PeskyDane on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 9:24pm.
Nice to see Will remembering that he's supposed to be a conservative.
Once again Reich proves the Logic/Liberals - Sunlight/Vampire law.
Noel - Reich just out and lied . . on the 1% data
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 10:00pm.
ROBERT REICH: Well, I -- let's just be clear about the facts. I mean, right now, the top 1 percent is claiming in terms of their pay, a larger share of total income than has been at any time since before the Great Depression.
Riech should know better, as he was a party to the Clinton era.
In 1993, the top 1% of income earners earned 13.7% of all income (AGI) earned.
By the end of 2000, it had soared to 20.81% (I'm going to round that to 21%). 21% Robert Reich. The largest share since the roaring 20's (which is what you meant to say -that is the money line, not the "great depression.")
Last data I've seen, 2009, shows that the income share of the top 1% stands at 16.9%.
So, Sec. Reich, if you want to spew your hate and vitriol at someone; please, let it be at Bill Clinton.
But foremost, stop with the lying.
(;~/ gary
Defeating the Frank-'n'-Reich monster
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 10:13pm.
Will is just the guy to deal with Reich and the insufferable Frank. His pyromaniac quote is classic.
Lefties like Reich love to cite the economic growth of the Fifties -- a decade they have otherwise disparaged for homogenous social norms, suburban sprawl and 'white fight,' and a lazy, 'do-nothing' President Eisenhower. But when it comes to a 91% tax rate, the Fifties are remembered fondly.
As has been noted, nobody actually paid 91% thanks to the tax code.
But even more important, the United States:
1. Had come through WW2 without the heavy infrastructure damage suffered in Europe, Japan, and China.
2. Had no real economic competitors.
3. Was not yet at the end of the Baby Boom (officially 1964), and therefore could not foresee the doomed math of the New Deal programs they maintained.
The world today is much different. If a 91% tax rate doesn't hurt growth, then why hasn't China imposed one? .
Hold on..........
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 10:07pm.
George Will and Paul Ryan vs Barney Frank and Robert Reisch?
That is an unequal distribution of mind wealth. Will and Ryan are going to have to pay more of their fair share into the kiddie from which Frank and Reisch draw. It's just not fair. Couldn't there have been a government-appointed redistribution manager to ensure that equality of mind and logic was afforded to all participants, by levying a tax on Will and Ryan?
"There is an unequal distribution of mind wealth."
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 10:34pm.
:-)
Good line, GregE.
Jer
missing info
Submitted by ladeflippinda on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 11:23pm.
Was there more to this? I did not sense the demolishing the headline teased.
It was a good line which every American should think of...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 1:35am.
everytime Obama gives a speech.
THIS is what I mean by what
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 12:40am.
THIS is what I mean by what is an "extreme right winger" when I see this panel comprised of 2 {3 with Amanpour} far far lefty/D's vs. 2 R's that speak to/for the vast majority of us.
So the viewer is supposed to think Ryan & Will are "extreme right wingers" OR is the viewer supposed to think Frank & Reich are "moderates"???
Or is it more superficial - root for the little guy {I know, that was mean :-P } against these eeeeeeeeevil R's???
Ronald Reagan
amy...who referred to Ryan and Will as "extreme right wingers"?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 4:00am.
In my view, this was a debate between two solid conservatives and two solid liberals. The only thing I wish is that this type of format would be arranged and televised far more often.
Jer
jer
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:14am.
It was a call back to my question of what constitutes an "extreme right winger" to the left.
Since I've heard Ryan's plan referred to as "extreme" then by extensin, is one not to assume they mean he is as well?
Will is so balanced, that charge is laughable.
And you consider Frank and Reich "solid liberals" OK then, what is Harold Ford Jr. then?
I saw this panel {as one audience member noted} as a way to show the HUGE divide, and since they used far left D's against solid C/R's, I'd say the purpose was *supposed* to highlight that gulf, and paint the R's as unreasonable and extreme, since the msm so loves to create/drive the narrative, and those 2 {3} are all too willing to do so!
Ronald Reagan
amy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 5:13pm.
Since I've heard Ryan's plan referred to as "extreme" then by extensin, is one not to assume they mean he is as well?
Let me answer that with a question: Bill Clinton's Deficit Reduction Plan in 1993 was considered so "extreme" that not a single Republican congressman voted for it. Does that, by extension, mean one should assume Clinton was an "extremist"? No, he wasn't--and neither is Ryan. Clinton was center/left and Ryan is a solid conservative with an ACU rating of 96 for the past two years.
Will is so balanced, that charge is laughable.
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean. Will is a conservative in every sense of the word. If he's not a conservative, then there is no such thing as a conservative. And he is solid. And brilliant as well.
And you consider Frank and Reich "solid liberals" OK then, what is Harold Ford Jr. then?
Left of center, but to the right of both Frank and Reich. Fairly close to Clinton.
By the way, I watched the entire debate, to which the entire hour was devoted. I'm not a fan of Amanpour, but I thought she did a good job as moderator. She remained neutral. It was a balanced format--2 vs. 2.
Paul Ryan was impressive--well-prepared, calm, sensible and articulate. Will seemed a bit off his game except for a strong closing. Frank was his normal contentious self, but he dominated the arguments from the left perspective. Reich took a far more conciliatory approach.
Jer
PS...I note Brent Baker has a blog posted about Amanpour taking the liberal side. I have seen her skew things to the left before but I didn't get that sense at all in this case. Furthermore, the very premise of the debate was 'Americans want less government', which on that basis alone put the libs on the defensive from the outset.
TY Jer, with the word
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 5:24pm.
TY Jer, with the word "extreme" being thrown around to describe conservative thought lately, I thought maybe they redefined the word or something!
My beef with Clinton was how he reduced {you called me out for using decimated before - I remembered!} our military to help create his balanced budget, and as I noted, with all the sex bs, I mostly tuned out during his Presidency. But you think he's really just center left? I got the impression he would have gleefully enacted/.appointed the same types as pres. Obama has if he could have!
I'll have to watch the debate again and not ff through her part then, since I'd *love* to hear her be fair for a change!
Yep, Ryan was his usual - brilliant! Frank was a bomb thrower - what a bully btw!!! And Will was a little lost there for a bit. Reich was playing the sympathy card - his usual too.
Ronald Reagan
YW, amy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 5:50pm.
Jer
One important thing keeps
Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 3:24am.
One important thing keeps getting missed in these discussions.
There was a reason Republicans took the house last year:
TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!
If you refuse to work or get an education
Submitted by ohio granny on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 11:13am.
If you refuse to work or even try to get an education to better your chances of getting a good paying job, whose fault is that? If you are content to have the government support you and your children, then how do you propose to gain financially?
Why does anyone think they are entitled to someone else's work and income? If you are too lazy or too stupid to work, that is on you. No one owes you a living. I am tired of democrats demanding a share of someones hard work be given to someone who does not (refuses to) work. But notice, they are not willing to give up anything they own, only someone else's. The wealthiest people in this country are democrats. Democrats only pander and slander to create class warfare and resentment.
All we are promised is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. If you do not want to try, the outcome is definitely on you.
Yeah Barney... we're 'anti-education'.
Submitted by FearMonger on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 1:00pm.
Not to mention 'anti-clean air/water', 'anti-poor/homeless' let's not forget my personal favorite 'pro-poison'.
Paul Krugman, Meet Your Twin, Robert Reich
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 2:00pm.
These two weasels should go get a room.
Twin sons of different mothers.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
"You are a pyromaniac in a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 4:15pm.
"You are a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen."
That is, by far, the best line from a conservative in 2011.
I gotta remember that one when I run across liberals taking the same types of straw man fallacies as Reich.