Apr 16, 2016 4 min read

Most American workers are confused by economics. While they certainly know when they are not doing well and working longer hours for smaller paychecks, the reason they can’t get ahead is not easy to explain.

The mysteries that surround economics for most Americans have given Republicans great leeway in blaming the wrong factors for the lack of opportunity and frozen wages that confront many workers. Unfortunately, many in the working and middle classes have come to believe these unsupported theories.

The example that irks me the most is the conservative hijacking of the “Robin Hood” myth, as brilliantly described by James Meek in a February issue of the London Review of Books. The conservative version of the Robin Hood legend has all the same players as the original medieval tale, but gives “robbing the rich to pay the poor” a whole new meaning.

In this conservative revisionist tale, the great mass of heavily taxed citizens who work hard for little reward are identified as our disgruntled working class. All but the ultra-rich are included in this category, including multimillionaires who work for a living. The profits from their labor and taxes they pay go to support a number of arrogant, lazy individuals who have no need to work, now identified as anyone receiving public benefits.

The vast liberal bureaucracy is identified as the sheriff of Nottingham. The ultra-rich become the absent monarch, King Richard, who are cast as a kinder, more benevolent authority, ensuring that capitalism, including inherited wealth, survives in its purest form.

Finally, conservative politicians set themselves up as Robin Hood figures, seeking to right wrongs by knocking down the disabled, the single mothers, refugees and other assorted chiselers and cheats. The new mantra has become, “Take back from the not-working-poor to give to working citizens, including the wealthy.”

While an economic model that excludes givebacks from rich Americans seems preposterous, there is a reason why Republicans are able to get away with it. Many low-and-middle-income working Americans prefer to align their economic interests with wealthy workers than with those who do not work at all. How else to explain disgruntled American workers and small-business owners throwing in their lot with a billionaire presidential candidate who lives in the stratified realm of penthouses, private jets, yachts and country clubs rather than with the progressives who seek an end to income inequality.

In a recent cover story, The Economist pushed back against this economic myth from a different angle. The probing, comprehensive study finds the profits realized by the largest American corporations have been too large for too long when compared with historical averages. While these corporations employ fewer workers – now only 1 in 10 – they have amassed oversized profits through consolidation, increased productivity, lobbying for favorable regulations and arcane patent laws. These giants suck up all the oxygen in many sectors of the economy, leaving little room for small businesses and startups. This places severe restrictions on competition and the hiring of new employees.

The article makes clear the enemy of small-and-medium-sized employers is not the social safety net. What is holding back new business ventures and new employment is our largest corporations that are realizing returns on equity 40 percent higher at home than abroad. These profits are largely not being reinvested, not being used to increase wages and not returned to consumers by lowering prices.

Before a Republican Congress attempts to cut corporate tax rates, give amnesty to overseas profits or permit further consolidation of large business interests, it needs to understand this clear and convincing example of runaway corporate greed.

Perhaps conservatives seeking a more equitable America will even return the Robin Hood myth to its original intent – to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.