Why I Oppose The Public Option - As A "Cultural Strategist"

As the health care debate brews in this country the gloves appear to be coming off among the factions. Angry groups are appearing at the public forums to let their positions be known. No surprise the "racism chasers" have shown up on the scene as well.

The portion of White demonstrators that are steadfastly against this deliberate government power grab must be motivated, it seems, because there is a "Black President". Of course one Cynthia Tucker, editorial operative from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, who fielded this stink bomb is not asked to run this claim through the logic test to bear out her claim that "racism" is the driving factor. Does anyone believe that if Hillary Clinton was president and was driving home these exact same proposals that these people would sit back contented that their "White president" was putting forth something in their "best interests"? Please!!

The benefit of the scoundrel is that he is never forced to justify his own perspective. He drops his bomb and the target must answer the question "So when did you stop being a racist then?"

The goal is to change the framing of the argument so that his adversary made to be driven by some other, untoward and reprehensible motivation. This forces the more "common sense" people to ask themselves: "Do I want to be on the 'same side' as these other people?

If every one of these protesters were Klan members, however, this would not change the substantive points of the debate one bit.

I posted previously about the historical "Presidential Snow Jobs" where Johnson showed us that we can't sell these large entitlement spending programs based on the economic facts. Instead they must be sold on "emotion".


BUT WHAT ARE THE RACIAL ASSUMPTIONS THOUGH?

With respect to the 3 metro Atlanta Democratic African-American congressmen (Scott, Lewis and Johnson) they all support the so called "Public Option". In fact this government sponsored health care option is being argued as "the Pro-Black option" as well. But why?

As I listen to both Scott and Lewis their argument goes something like this: "As health care gets more expensive, an increasing number of people are losing their health care coverage or losing their jobs and thus their health care coverage. Thus the government needs to do something to insure that these people are adequately covered".

A corresponding argument is that since a disproportionate number of African-Americans are poor and thus this program helps the poor....those in opposition therefore stand against Black best interests. I set up my argument previously that the Black Establishment has no problem at all having Black people to assume an INFERIORITY as long as there is some benefit to be assumed by stooping low.

Their argument basically is that since there is a mass public need - the government needs to step in and do something about the suffering of the people.

I need to also bring in some ideological propensities upon which most of these assumptions are based.

THE PROGRESSIVE WAR AGAINST BUSINESS

I reported hearing an African-American caller to a Black radio talkshow program. He said something to the effect that "The only thing that can stop these businesses from aggregating the power that they desire is GOVERNMENT!!". I have little doubt that this is a very popular thought among a certain type of people. These same people will never ask "What is the counter-check to government power?"

Recall last year about this time I was on the forefront of debating the issue of Government WiFi projects around the nation that were proposed to insure Internet access in the name of closing the so-called "Digital Divide". The same players back then roughly took the same side as in this present debate about health care. Since there is an unmet need among the masses and since the corporations have failed to apply adequate coverage at an affordable price - GOVERNMENT WILL GO INTO THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INTERNET ACCESS as a means of doing an end around against the greed and (to a point) the racism driven denial of access to the "underserved communities".

It took only a few months of observations to see all of these Government WiFi plans to crash and burn. They were warned about the lack of fiscal viability but this did not stop any of these social justice operatives that were driven by ideology and good intentions.

Few people talk about the millions of dollars that were wasted in Philadelphia, for example. In this specific case , not only was there Internet service being offered to the (mostly) "Poor Blacks", the program also handed out computers so that they could access the net inside of their own homes. In the mind of the Progressive - there was a heightened SOCIETAL STANDARD that everyone should have the right to live up to. They were prepared to meet this commitment even if they had to make these people "In Receipt Of This Benefit" in the process. Financial realities, be damned.

Of course this program did not and never could have GIVEN a computer and substantially discounted Internet access to all of the poor people who needed it. It could never have been financially viable in the long run if it did anyway. We saw that it was not even financially viable in the short run. Thus it crashed and burned, leaving the corporate operator, Earthlink on the verge of bankruptcy. Earthlink was forced to lay off people as a result of this escapade.

Just one year later and there is a bevy of private corporate competitors gunning for the market share for wired and cellular wireless Internet access firms. Atlanta, where I live, is slated to have about 3 different WiMax Internet access service providers all competing for the same market share. Prices for wireless Internet access are going down. Speeds are going up. A recent report noted that Black Americans have a higher cellular web browser utilization than most others.

BACK TO HEALTH CARE

I work hard to do pattern matching of the various antics used by certain operatives and then provide my analysis of their agenda.

The present talking point with regard to what is being called "Health Care Reform" and specifically the "Public Option" is said to be either "In the best interests of all Americans" or people in opposition are said to be "Voting AGAINST their own best interests".

I yield the point that the progressives often has the short term time horizon working significantly to their advantage. In as much as the American people are an "I want it now" type of people, when issues like health care come up the voter has a short memory about past mistakes but also a short term strategic focus upon what he is seeking to achieve.

Is there any question that in the last 50 years during the labor movement in certain parts of America those who drove a hard bargain with their corporate employer in their quest to maximize their advantage in their pay, retirement and benefits package were told to VOTE FOR THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS? Any union member who accepted anything less was, in turn said to be "voting against their own best interests". This is pretty straight forward stuff as it relates to group behavior and the cajoling that comes along with it.

Who would have guessed 20 years ago that General Motors and Chrysler would be bankrupt and that Ford would have edged near this point as well? Lets not forget about the network of suppliers that have been pummeled as well.

In reading the various pro-labor, anti-corporate assessments per my research the universal claim regarding why these companies took the fall is because of "management decisions". No doubt that this is true. I only question which management decisions the critic is willing to point to. Never do they talk about the "management decision" to pay out more in labor costs than was sustainable for their businesses.

They frequently point to the choice of building large cars and trucks rather than competing head on with Toyota, Nissan and others in the small car market. Rarely do they point out that despite the small car line up that they did have the American consumer - especially young people (the more progressive crowd) opted for the non-union built foreign alternative.

In a recent article in Harper's Magazine which focused on the growth of Toyota in Kentucky the author could not get away from his anti-corporate, pro-labor orientation and blame both GM and Toyota in various ways. The fact that non-union Toyota used temp labor to supplement its work force and then purged all of them during this recent slowdown is proof of their uncaring and worker exploitative tendencies. In truth - they chose to keep the "core entity" going as a viable concern as they shed a few individuals as a means of doing so. The Toyota Motor Company realized that they had to be "still in the game to be still in the game" (No [sic] required on that last quote. :-) )

This slight diversion leads me to my argument. Some people care less about the long term consequences of their attempts to maximize the benefits among the masses. (Please note: This same observation is true for the Wall Street Trader as well.) In fact their short term attempt to do so is seen as "caring for all" and thus they are more in line with humanity. Their hated adversary in this conflict, however, is the management who dares to enforce the "Fire Hazard Warning". If he dares enforce the maximum allowable burden of people that the building or vessel was engineered for he is a cold hearted S.O.B. When the catastrophic event occurs , however, those who sought to enforce the standard will be looked upon to help pull the victims out of the collapse building. These demands of them being shouted by those who packed them in.

There is clearly an "authority" vs "the masses" power conflict in play.


CENTRALIZED VS DISTRIBUTED RISK AND LOAD

For me as the "observer of patterns" that I claim to be this entire debate is just another instance of the macro debate that is polarizing our nation. There are those among us who wish to functionally dismantle the balance and purpose of our federal system of government. As such this system is a threat because it pushes risk and fiscal obligation out to the periphery upon which they'll notice that FAIRNESS is not equally distributed to all Americans. With the burden at the periphery the individual's action (or the small group of people within his community) starts to play a larger role in his ultimate outcome (standard of living). For those who have "fed the weak" but did nothing to strengthen them over time - THIS is a threat. They have so inferiorized these people that they know that there can only ever be one result to allowing their own industriousness to be the primary determining factor in their living standard - catastrophic failure.

The goal of the Progressive is to replace this "unfair" system with a more centrally distributed system in which a government operative - not a CORPORATE or MARKET PLACE operative makes the major decisions on both resource allocation and the funding mechanisms by which all of this is paid for. This is the dream called "Democratic Socialism". The great Martin Luther King Jr was a subscriber to this mode of economic distribution. If he were alive to day and was pronouncing this economic and political form - I would stand against him on these economic policies. In effect the masses can vote themselves entitlement and access to one's wallet via popular will. The problem with doing the same via "home invasion" is that this is illegal.

The other day when I said something similar I was called an "anti-tax loon". In truth this has nothing to do with taxes per se. You will find few people that fail to acknowledge that our government needs some level of taxation for its basic operations.

Instead this argument is about PRIVATE PROPERTY. Thus the real question is: "At what point must the government's quest for resources be confined by the overriding RESPECT FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY"? In turn the government must look to the same masses seeking benefit from the government to raise more of the necessary revenues or, perish the thoughts - the masses must lament that they can't afford to raise the standard of living that they desire via the channels that are available to them lest they engage in pilfer. Catastrophic Collapse is the destination if we continue this present course of debt spending.

It is strange how some of the people who stand strongly opposed to this nation's international plunder and pilfer as a means of fulfilling our national appetite for raw materials are far less inclined to protest the same confiscatory spirit internally - as long as no guns are used in the process.


WHAT OF THE BLACK MAN AND THE 'PUBLIC OPTION?'

I wish that my people had a more consistent memory. Yes they have a massive focus upon Slavery, Jim Crow and how the Republicans ran the "Southern Strategy" since Richard Nixon. These serve as their "Remember The Alamo" cry against their adversary.

Less up for recall is the "Urban Strategy" that was run roughly at the same time. In the urban employment centers various progressive/left groups since Reconstruction have strongly sought the Black vote. An array of Communists, Socialists and Progressives have long trolled for the Black vote. (Read "The Invisible Man"). The promise was that if they were put into power over our local interests - our lot in lives would be made better via their economic policy initiatives.

Throughout time the African American was a strong part of the labor movement as it fought against the corporate establishment. We were a strong part of the Democratic/Progressive coalition as various elements of the Republican and Conservative Democratic power base was run out of the municipal government, the school systems, the police forces. All of these powers were said to be the central cause of our malaise during that time.

In as much as our political activism in the milieu of a "struggle" - one just needed to cue up the next ADVERSARY and against them the Black Machine would FIGHT.

This memory that I speak of which is lost would force these same people to pause from their struggle and make note, ironically, of the actual VICTORIES that they have won. Now keep in mind my argument has been that there have been victories but we must further dissect this down to the question of "WHO'S VICTORY".

Certainly the Democratic Party and the Progressives control every large city in America that has a sizable Black population. This victory goes to these two forces. In as much as these cities were initially developed as industrial or transportation centers where people moved for the perfect mix of employment and entertainment among fellow human's these cities serve an important function.

In as much as the city of Detroit stands today as the deflated capital of union labor politics both from the perspective of their destroyed industrial base and their government which is falling apart, its school system on the brink of bankruptcy - one would assume that far more introspection would be heard among the loyal followers who are pushing for CHANGE. "If this is the current state of the land that we have fought over and won....what might be the future state of the land once we matasticise our national victory against the same forces that we had defeated in Detroit and most other major cities?".

In the only string of words that I have ever heard from Dennis Kuchinich that I have ever agreed with: "We all know that you are working hard. The question that we have is 'Who are you working for?'".

THE PUBLIC OPTION IS A TRANSFERENCE OF OBLIGATION FROM THE CORPORATION TO THE GOVERNMENT

I will never make the mistake of accusing my progressive friends of failing to be dogged about what they believe most strongly. They don't look at their past failures and learn from them. Instead they look at the present need at hand and go after the available resources to address this need. For this they are judged upon their present "social justice" actions, not upon the question of "What of this present situation was caused by or exacerbated by your failure to BUILD UP STRONG PEOPLE in the previous interval which has passed?"

Here we stand with a significant portion of our American industrial base in ruin. In as much as this source is no longer able to pay salaries, retirement and health care benefits - some see the most logical source to turn to for these benefits from none other than the Federal Government. After all they gave the corporate behemoth a chance and they failed. Indeed the benefits that the workers received from these corporations was commensurate with the work effort contributed to these same firms. Despite their likely opposition - no conservative can claim that labor did no work in line with teh receipt of these benefits. The only debate in this regard, as I so often say was "How large of a slice was labor going to take home from the pie?". The question of "Was it sustainable" is quite clear - No.

Fast forward to this present state of affairs. The "God" named Ted Kennedy is smiling. He is on the cusp of finally separating the question of one's health benefits from the question of one's work effort to have earned such a benefit. It is their belief that health care and other entitlements should be American rights and possibly human rights. These are rights that no corporation's bottom line or no rich man's defensiveness about his own wealth should come in between - in the views of some with the progressive spirit. They fail to note that just because "THEY" reject the "corporate bottom line" it does not mean that the bottom line CAN be rejected. Thus they are poised to transfer the health care burden off of General Motors that is bankrupt and apply it to an entity that already has a $12,100 BILLION debt. It doesn't worry as much about the "bottom line" because it owns a printing press.


For the Progressive, they will always enjoy a popular following with this disposition. To the net beneficiary there is nothing to lose from their perspective. They will trade the one thing of value - their vote - for that which they value - entitlement that is produced from the political process.

As for me I reject the "Public Option" because it is little more than an attempt to load up the centralized government with yet another large and PERMANENT and GROWING fiscal burden that brings closer our day of reckoning with the collection agency as a nation.

I am wise to the fact that the "We can't afford it" argument will suffer a counter claim. They will throw up "Iraq" or "AIG" as their defense. This doesn't stand as a counter. They only seek to eliminate the argument so that they are cleared to spend EVEN MORE MONEY. It certainly is not thrown out with the goal of more rational spending. It is the fact that this is yet another flaw in the strategy to centralize the fiscal load on the national government as it attempts to spread the benefit equally. To the progressive this front end benefit is grand as all survivors are picked out of the water.

In as much as they are also attempting to abstract the benefit that one's private money can purchase in the way of health care - this foolish attempt (as one elderly adversary said the other day) "remove CLASS" as a determining factor in health care distribution - will only mean that in the attempt at equal redistribution:

• Will strengthen the government as the agent of SUPPRESSION, keeping the wealthy from purchasing his way into benefit that others do not have access to
  
• The appetite for this same system that needs more resources because more demand is being put upon it from the periphery will insure that it will need to be fed more and will draw upon the same food source
  

As I apply the dynamic of "cultural development" I struggle to see how this program places a "sub-group of people living inside of a greater society, who seek to develop their own consciousness and industriousness" in a better light. Instead it appears to be an enabler of the opposite behavioral norms.

If you work 60 hours a week or if you work 5 - you are entitled to the same level of care. In these perverted terms - the person is valued equally in this "no-fault" system that is created. How often do we have to go through this cycle to see that over time working 5 hours will be less strenuous than working 60 and that as these hours are reduced, the need for even more resources from the central government is increased. Thus this same force that has power over your provision of care will also have a greater need to increase the taxes further down the income scale because there are fewer of these individuals willing to play the "national breadwinner" role any longer. This force will ultimately have more power over YOU and how you live your life.

For me a distributed economic system is far superior both in wealth creation and in driving human development - rather than ENTITLEMENT.