Michelle Malkin » A reply to Robert Reich’s open letter

A reply to Robert Reich’s open letter

By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2009 09:07 AM

Robert Reich, the former Labor Secretary, is currently a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. UC Berkeley should be embarrassed at the shoddy quality of Reich’s intellectual engagement. Over the weekend, he posted an “Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin” in reply to our criticism of his recent House testimony in favor of color-coded stimulus spending.

He indignantly accuses critics of twisting his words:

In a time like this, when tempers are riding high and many Americans are close to panic about their jobs and finances, you have a special responsibility to consider the accuracy of what you say and the consequences of inflammatory and erroneous statements. In the last few days, manifestly distorting my words and pulling them out of context, you have accused me of wanting to exclude white males from jobs generated by the stimulus package.

Whines Reich:

Anyone who takes a moment to examine what I actually said and wrote knows this to be an absurd misrepresentation of my position (see this).

Reich’s lone citation to prove his accusation? Media Matters!

Reich refuses to link my post on the subject because I provided full context for his remarks — quoting both his testimony and his blog post advocating for government racial preferences favoring unskilled and non-white workers over skilled and white workers.

Let me quote Reich again from his blog post:

The stimulus plan will create jobs repairing and upgrading the nation’s roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewage system, public-transit systems, electricity grid, and schools. And it will kick-start alternative, non-fossil based sources of energy (wind, solar, geothermal, and so on); new health-care information systems; and universal broadband Internet access.

It’s a two-fer: lots of new jobs, and investments in the nation’s future productivity.

But if there aren’t enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out.

What to do? There’s no easy solution to either dilemma…

People can be trained relatively quickly for these sorts of jobs, as well as many infrastructure j0bs generated by the stimulus — installing new pipes for water and sewage systems, repairing and upgrading equipment, basic construction — but contractors have to be nudged both to provide the training and to do the hiring.

I’d suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. And at least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training. In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades apprenticeships — wich must be fully available to women and minorities.

The House testimony and exchange with Rangel make absolutely clear that Reich intends the “criteria” for the 20 percent/2 percent set-asides to be race-based:

Partial transcript:

REICH: …”I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying there are other people who have needs as well.”

And as you’ll note from both my post and the actual video clip, Rep. Rangel is ready, willing, and able to push the race-based program much further.

Reich now pretends that you can create exclusionary, race-based earmarks and “not exclude anyone from access:”

My goal is and has always been to create as many opportunities for as wide a group as possible, and not exclude anyone from access. There is and has never been any ambiguity about this.

Spoken like a true, smug academic living in fantasy land.

Concludes Reich:

Words and ideas have real world consequences, and you have demonstrated a cavalier disregard for both.

Pot. Kettle.

***

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: fiscal stimulus

Printer Friendly

comments (109)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On January 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pm, frostrt said:

On January 26th, 2009 at 10:34 am, eaglehaslanded said:
You don’t need to be an “academic” (i.e. someone smart)
————————————–

I think we’ve seen plenty of evidence that those two don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand.

And if caling out racism and sexism disquised and “inclusiveness” makes one a “silly, screeching twit”, then I say keep on screeching, MM!
#102

On January 26th, 2009 at 7:33 pm, Wellsy said:

A silly, screeching twit, eagle? So much for all that bipartisanship and unity, eh, buddy?

Reich’s response is utterly pathetic. His words speak for themselves, and Michelle, you, Sean, and Rush, did absolutely the right thing in calling him on it. He’s really just upset that anyone was paying attention to C-SPAN when he was testifying.
#103

On January 26th, 2009 at 7:38 pm, Bill Grant said:

On January 26th, 2009 at 1:56 pm, mike.musculus said:

Hi Everybody!
Commenting to keep Dad’s acct. active. Dad is doing well enough.

Glad to hear your father is doing well Mike. He is lucky to have you look after him.
#104

On January 26th, 2009 at 7:42 pm, TooMuchTime said:

Here’s what a moron called GotKids on the MediaMatters comments page for Reich’s statement said:

…the byzantine world of economic principles where conservatives will LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH to tell the American public that cutting taxes raises tax revenue…

Whoever that person is, they are evidently retarded!

If the tax rate is 0% then the tax revenue is $0 collected. However, if the tax rate is 100%, then the revenue collected is also $0 because no one will work if they don’t get money out of it. And no business will remain in business if they don’t get money. And no investor will invest if they don’t get money out of it.

So, if you (wait for it) cut taxes from 100% to 50%, you will (wait for it again) collect more tax revenue! You have to because you’re collecting nothing at 100%. And at anything over 50%, people will find a way not to pay.

Cutting taxes always feeds an economy. Read this. If you’re liberal, don’t read it. The reason, logic, and common sense in it will make your head explode.
#105

On January 26th, 2009 at 7:48 pm, ofbbg said:

What’s that old saying? Oh, yeah – “Those who can, DO – those who can’t, TEACH”.
#106

On January 26th, 2009 at 10:42 pm, Republicanvet said:

I wonder what ReiiiiicccchhhhhhSHA would say if the jobs were only targeted for taller people.

Moron.

On January 26th, 2009 at 7:48 pm, ofbbg said:

What’s that old saying? Oh, yeah – “Those who can, DO – those who can’t, TEACH”.

…or at least get a cushy gig at some liberal bastion where nobody has to strain themselves by thinking.
#107

On January 26th, 2009 at 11:48 pm, JamieD said:

Reich’s response just proves that MM’s assertion was correct.

How can anyone take his “directive” out of context? What was said…was, well…said. His failure to reasonably explain how his words were misquoted and give an alternate understanding (that did not contradict himself) is all the proof I need that his intentions were made clear and now his true character is apparent. He is is lying.

Please do not confuse “lying” with the definition used by the left (i.e.Bush), but its true meaning of purposefully misrepresenting the facts.
#108

On January 27th, 2009 at 12:28 am, Marc said:

Mr Reich’s wife is a law professor who filed a big lawsuit against a prominent university in Ma. The university knuckled under and paid her a king’s ransom. Better to pay off the plaintiff than to risk all the negative press from the MSM accusing the university of sexism or racism or whatever ism it was. But the huge payout to the Reich/Dalton clan means that the university loses hundreds of thousands of dollars that could go to fund scholarships for needy youngsters. Instead the money goes to make the Reich/Dalton clan quite comfortable and able to live in upper middle class splendor. And this from a champion of the proletariat?
#109

On January 27th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, Gorebot said:

Once again, the Left demonstrates that it’s quite alright to be racialist in one’s approach, as long as one is racialist in the (politically) correct manner.

Then they’ll turn right around and genuflect in front of Martin Luther King’s speech about people being judged “… not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”.

But of course, we will never have “gone far enough”.

Utterly disgustapatin’, as Popeye would say.