The conservative mind is a wonderous thing to behold, especially when it’s the Washington Post’s best mind, George Will.
In a column that starts out ranting about how voracious is the payroll tax that virtually every worker must pay, George Will takes only two paragraphs to forget what he just wrote and proceeds to share goofy GOPer Dave Camp’s lament that so many people have such low incomes that they’re not subject to income tax. Ah, if we could only tax the poor, because, you know, there are now so many more of them. What could be simpler?
Hence, Will and Camp agree, we have this terrible moral hazard in which people don’t have “skin in the game” to hold government accountable, forgetting these same people still pay this supposedly voracious payroll tax that captures more of their income as it goes up and even though they also pay property taxes, gasoline taxes, general sales taxes and a dozen other fees and charges that contribute to government and public infrastructure, including feeding parking meters and paying bridge and highway tolls.
Never mind that workers likely don’t mind paying a payroll tax — the polls confirm they’d even support exposing more of their (and Will’s) incomes to that tax — when it’s explained to them this is their savings that they will get back with interest via Social Security, unless people like Dave Camp and his new friends Simpson, Obama & Bowles steal it from them. Now there’s a moral hazard.
Government accountability sounds like a good idea; we should try it. So I suppose we should mention that the bipartisan conservative majority that rules the country has now fully accepted an entire decade of fraudulent, criminal conduct by banks, loan shark “education” institutions (go Kaplan!), health insurers and medical providers, mass polluters, corporations making and Congresspeople accepting bribes and wholesale Constitutional violations by the executive branch, and we can’t seem to indict anyone who was responsible. Please pay the fines. But for heaven’s sake, let’s fix the tax system to make government accountable.
But to clinch that a mind is a terrible thing to waste on a conservative columnist, Will neglects to mention that the payroll tax that negates the moral hazard and puts real skin in the game was just cut by a third, at Republican insistence — with all of Camp’s friends voting Yah!, and replaced with . . . nothing. Or more accurately, it will be replaced by a Ben Bernanke helicopter drop that will be confused with the dreaded deficit spending, so that the electronic ledgers at the SS Trust Fund don’t miss a cent — and Dave Camp’s Party thought that was just swell.
Or perhaps some merely thought making an outfight gift of a cool $100 billion with a trillion more to follow to the richest folks, many of whom just tanked the economy and are still looting the country, is how you make taxes simpler and government more accountable. As the incoming GOP Chair of the banking committee reminds us, it’s his job to service the bankers, so he will. Mindless.
John Chandley



29 Comments

You forgot to mention one thing that should be mentioned in every post, article, whatever, that even bothers to mention George Will: he’s Number 11 on the Salon Hack Thirty list! And if his entry on the list (which describes him as “slimy and amoral as a spitball” and as “a living example of the truth that there’s never any punishment for bad behavior in punditland”) is to be believed, he’s not just a hack – he’s a professional liar.
Also, is it even worth writing a post about the drivelings of such a person? The Hack Thirty isn’t an enemies list – it’s a “don’t bother” list. It’s a list of pundits who have been discredited so many times over that they’re unworthy of further attention.
A waste is a terrible thing to mind.
Another point: rather than wasting keystrokes on an established member of the Hack Thirty, why not do something more constructive by expanding the list? My chief criticism of the Hack Thirty is that it stops at an arbitrary total. Surely there are hundreds or thousands of mainstream commentators out there who are just as eminently unworthy of further attention (except to identify them as such!) as the Salon Hack Thirty. And not all of them are journalists; there are plenty of academics and political operatives as well. For example, why should anyone care what David Gergen or Bob Shrum thinks about anything? (Although I must admit that it was hilarious to read Gergen’s exchanges with Matt Taibbi, whom he had mistaken for Hack Thirty member Matt Bai, in Rolling Stone.)
Maybe it’s time to add a new tab to FDL for an expanded Hack Infinity.
Hacks are worth rebutting because they continue to do damage. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be on the list. If ignoring them would make them go away . . .
Ignoring them, strictly speaking, won’t make them go away. That’s the reason for my parenthetical proviso “except to identify them as such”. But identifying them as such – providing one concise and easily accessible article for each of them, explaining why they’re not worth listening to – might. That’s why I was so impressed by the Salon Hack Thirty list – it’s a collection of such articles. A database, as opposed to a mere list, would be even better. Another example of the kind of thing I have in mind is Dickipedia, although that example is flawed, because we could never trust a wiki for such a purpose – the list or database would have to be curated, like the Hack Thirty. You could also think of it as a Snopes for hacks instead of rumors. Even closer to what I have in mind are the pages in SourceWatch for industry-friendly experts. I continue to look for more sources of information like this.
George Will’s Hack Thirty entry will do more to discredit him than any number of rebuttals of individual pieces he writes. Even if your intent is to discredit him, you undercut your own message by bothering to provide rebuttals to individual articles he has written. The reader will tend to infer that, at minimum, you regard it as an open question, subject to legitimate controversy, whether he is worth listening to. A reference to his Hack Thirty entry has no such disadvantage. It can be used effectively by referencing it in responding to articles by other commentators who treat George Will as an “expert”. Challenge them as to why they think he is still worth listening to!
I’m quite serious about this. My invitation to write up other hacks (such as Gergen and Shrum) along the lines of the Hack Thirty is not rhetorical; it’s seriously meant, and I would really look forward to reading such posts.
Perhaps I’ve been too negativistic in response to your article; you certainly deserve credit for seeing clearly that George Will is a hack, and that it’s a serious social problem that he and others like him continue to be taken seriously. (And I recommended your post, which should have been a clue to me that at some level I thought it deserved more credit than I was giving it consciously!) But I stand by the merits of my proposals for better ways to respond to the problem.
Krugman pwns Will every time they meet which is why I’m sure we haven’t seen Krugman and Will together on This Week recently. I’ll never understand why the media gives Will, who has no credential in economics, the same amount of credibility or more as they give Paul Krugman. Would they give me space to argue relativity with Stephen Hawking? of course not! They’d laugh their asses off. I could make a cogent sounding, well written argument saying Hawking is full of crap but it would be cogent, well written bullshit. Just like what Will wrote in that piece.
I think that people who think that way must have potty training issues and are really, really, really constipated all the way up to their brains…just think about it…they even define themselves as “conservative”….They all need a huge fart and a good laugh for dog’s sake…let go
Conservatism is a symptom of insecurity. That’s why the love the NRA and large vehicles.
Because their purpose is not to inform you, it’s to confuse you. They’re building the echo chamber one hack at at time.
Just like we need to dismantle it by discrediting one hack at a time.
It would be irresponsible not to point out that George Will
is Conrad Black’s $25,000-a-trick rent boy.
I can attest to that from personal experience – even though I was never very big on guns or SUVs. There are other ways to manifest insecurity. That part of the stereotype is absolutely true.
yep. Sorry. Didn’t mean to trade in stereotypes. Not everybody with a gun or big truck is conservative nor do all conservatives have such but there is a correlation to conservatism and insecurity.
The “rent boy” article also mentions Will’s previous career, before he joined the Washington Post; he was (drumroll…)
I wonder how often that gig is mentioned by those mainstream TV hosts who invite Will onto their shows and imply that he is worthy of the viewer’s attention?
A number of things from the “rent boy” article deserve to go into Will’s Hack Thirty writeup, if it ever gets updated.
No offense taken. In fact, I appreciated your insight. I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said “the heresies that men leave are hated most.” I can attest to that, too. Even on Firedoglake, you will find few harsher critics of religious fundamentalism or political conservatism than I.
“The conservative mind is a wondrous thing to behold, especially when it’s the Washington Post’s best mind, George Will.”
If that’s the best they can do . . . . *rollseyes*
*G
Rcc’d, yet again . . .
But George Will is straight out of central casting for a conservative, http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bkmarcus.com/blog/images/goofs/GeorgeAlfalfaWill.gif&imgrefurl=http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/15/george-will-global-cooling-warming-debunked/&h=484&w=379&sz=1196&tbnid=7wnvXL5jLj-RCM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgeorge%2Bwill%2Bphoto&zoom=1&q=george+will+photo&usg=__tC6J5sK8dhOkETSVX3d3-_u3CPw=&sa=X&ei=VtQTTY2iHsP_lget5_H9Bw&ved=0CCQQ9QEwBQ with his bow tie & broadcaster trained voice. Shame on you for expecting him to have a mind too.
Why does it look like U.S. government tax policy is beginning to resemble a shell game?
Any bets on how long it will take for a Republican in the House, probably a Tea Party Republican, introduces a Flat Tax bill next year?
It probably won’t be done as a stand-alone bill, but will involve inserting a provision into some thousands-of-pages-long “must-pass” appropriations bill. And the wording will probably be “tweaked” enough so representatives may not even be aware that they are voting for a Flat Tax…until after it passes and gets signed into law, and voila, lookie-lookie, a Flat Tax now in effect, one that gets rid of payroll tax collections for Social Security, corporate taxes, the inheritance tax, all separate taxes, but especially those of the progressive kind, all rolled into one Flat Tax.
Following the mid-terms, the Flat Tax caucus in the House probably increased by a few members. And I can already tell you what is going to happen legislatively next year. The Republican-controlled House will write and pass legislation geared solely toward the Senate Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, which together might just comprise a majority in the Senate, meaning that the non-Blue Dog Democrats might end up being in a minority, but still higher than 40, meaning that these Democrats could mount a filibuster, unless, of course, the filibuster rules are changed at the beginning of the next Senate session.
So, let’s say this happens: the House passes and sends right-wing legislation to the Senate, where Senate Republicans, joining with Blue Dog Democrats, pass it and send it to President Obama to sign…or veto. Based on the past two years, the odds would be that President Obama would once again give into the hostage-takers, the right-wing blackmailers, because he just “had to,” and even more hardcore right-wing legislation will end up becoming law, including possibly a budget-busting revenue-draining Flat Tax, even while we are fighting two wars overseas and in the midst of a recession…and after President Obama caved already and signed an extension of the budget-busting deficit-exploding Bush era tax cuts, while agreeing to add on even more tax cuts.
Result? As things unfold next year, House Republicans will roll out the Flat Tax as their solution. (Of course, since the federal income tax is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one would think another amendment would be necessary to rescind it before a Flat Tax could replace it, but I figure Republican will try to find some way around this little problem).
Yep,you nailed it – it’s one big vast conspiracy to throw you off track.
And you’re doing a bang up job of discrediting, too.
I’d like to suggest, in response to the primary Obama vs. support a third party debate that breaks out here, that we really ought to concentrate more on EDUCATING the public.
The sources of misinformation and propaganda are so widespread that folks aren’t going to be open to WHY Obama needs to be primaried or opposed.
We need to figure out additional ways of deconstructing the lies and building/disseminating truth.
Probably because the banks are some of our biggest campaign donors. And bankers love shell games.
Lehman’s Repo 105 for example
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/03/repo_105_lehmans_accounting_gi.html
Yeah seriously. Often when the get someone on who’s both smart and truthful they counter balance by making it a 4 man panel along with Art Lafer, Larry Kudlow and the joe 6 pack of the day from the WaPo.
Absolutely – we have to work on multiple tracks in parallel. Reforming or dismantling the two-party system (or, as I’ve recommended, a combination of the both approaches) should be one of our major emphases; dismantling the echo chamber should be another. (That includes providing positive alternatives to the chorus of hacks.)
There’s a “short list” of a few critically important issues for us to address. Both of these two issues are on the list.
It’s also useful to rebut/debunk them so that everyone across the spectrum can easily compare notes. Some of these guys are so bad that they literally have no fan base left right center or independent. Friedman comes to mind…
Thanks, Scarecrow. Rebutting public displays of slimeball hypocrisy is always good.
That’s Will’s point, right? They get a direct benefit from FICA that they don’t get from income tax. So if we compel them to pay income taxes*, it may shift how they think about tax policy.
* Such a change could be cost-neutral for the taxpayer: increase their income tax and increase direct transfer payments by the same amount.
A flat tax is a species of income tax, so no amendment would be needed. Perhaps you’re thinking of the “fair tax,” or national sales tax.
That said, a national sales tax is constitutional since it’s an indirect tax. (and the constitution only prohibits direct taxes like property or wealth taxes)
He’s got that mavericky thing that the beltway loves. He was an early opponent of Bush from w/in the conservativism, and the media took that as infallible proof that he’s Very Serious. To be fair, he’s smarter than most pundits, but he’s still a pundit and still prone to vomiting CW and writing idiotic stuff.
I don’t think that sort of smug approach (wherein everyone that disagrees w/ you just needs to be “educated”) will win many people over.
“Listen, you idiots….” isn’t the most persuasive tact.
George Will was a Vietnam War Chickenhawk, like nearly every conservative “thinker” of his era. He has many Chickenhawk Compatriots in the current military-age conservative “thinkers” group.
He favored the VN War as long as … someone ELSE … was doing the fighting.
BTW … he REALLY, REALLY doesn’t like it when you accuse him of that . . . he gets all “hissy” ‘n’ stuff.