- A resource that has a consumption rate that is highly correlated to both race and class in America
- Some evidence that past and present "racial discrimination" has exacerbated the "divide" in consumption of this resource
- A plan to transfer the burden of costs incurred for this consumption of this exclusive resource from the backs of the beneficiary over to the government
- Past economic evidence which shows that as the government acquires such debt a "triangulation effect" takes place by which the establishment that controls the costs of this resource merely raise the price of it, knowing that the government will simply come to the rescue some time in the future
- Since this financial resources to gain access to this scarce resource must be paid on the FRONT end and these programs which transfer such debt to the government happens on the back end........the unintended consequence of these programs is that those people with fewer financial means as they apply for access to this resource which has inflating costs are gated out. Those who did have the resources up front pass through. They receive higher salaries as a result of their interaction with this scarce resource. They have their debt burden removed and shifted over to the general tax payer.
- The person who was "gated" is trapped with less earning power for having been unable to scale the financial obstacle that the ever inflating costs have constructed for him.
Thus the class stratification cycle is maintained.
The one tip that I will forever be grateful to Cornel West for providing me with is his the opening comments gave on a C-SPAN presentation which reviewed the book "When Affirmative Action Was White".
To be sure the original goal of Dr West was not to provide me with the material that I gleaned for my indictment. Instead his goal and the goal of the book was to show that past SYSTEMATIC and STRUCTURAL POLICIES had worked to perpetuate and exacerbate the imbalance of economic power between the classes and the races.
When I read the book I was in concurrence of the argument. However I observed an addition indictable offense. The "White Liberal" also had latent racism within his agenda. Indeed as policies such as the "GI Bill" or "The New Deal" were crafted to help the lower class - there were amendments added to specifically deny Blacks, Latinos access to these resources. For example - since these groups were disproportionately represented in the agricultural sector - the vested interests of the owners to not allow their labor forces to rise up economically and thus leave had a disproportionate impact on these poor racial minorities.
The indictment was that the White Progressives drove home their desire to implement these policies, prioritizing this implementation over fairness across the racial boundary lines.
I did not agree with all of the framing put forth by Ira Katznelson or Pro Cornel West who gave color commentary in his speech, attempting to connect advantage provided through legislation then with the hypocrisy of seeking to shut it down in its modern form. The fact remains, however, that the framework that is contained in my list above closely approximates the dispassionate analysis that the Progressives would render upon any program.
Blacks today are far less represented in colleges than are Whites. Thus it is incontroverible that the policy proposed by President Obama last night would benefit more Whites than it would Blacks. The double edged sword which complements this fact is that indeed the university systems will be more inclined to raise their tuition in the future rather than stream line their operations when they run into future budget crunches. They see the pattern where the government swoops in and rescues them.
Where are the "Disparate Impact" Opponents of today?
0 comments:
Post a Comment