The Financial Calculus Of Grievances

Two recent moves by the Obama Administration have me confused:

• Black Farmers Who Allege Past Discrimination By The Government And How Missed The Past Filing Deadline Given $1.25 Billion By The Obama Administration
• Obama Administration Cuts Funding To The "DC School Choice" Voucher Program - Slashing Funding For Up To 1,700 Low Income Black School Students (From $13M down to $9M)

As I monitor the Black Establishment news media and the blogs I note that the money sent to the farmers is being heralded as further proof that President Obama is in touch with the sentiments of Black folks.

It must be noted that those who receive this money:

• Merely have to ALLEGE that they were discriminated against
• Also they failed to file a claim during the first run of the settlement program.  This is a second round for those who claim that they were not made aware of the payments

Keep in mind of one reference as I transition to the next bullet point:  This represents a transfer of PUBLIC funds into PRIVATE hands.  Not because these farmers had contracts with the GOVERNMENT for "services rendered" but because they have a GRIEVANCE against how the government was alleged to have treated them because of their race.  Several Black Establishment media outlets have interviewed Black farmers who have told of stories of conflicts with "racist" White staff members of the "US Department of Agriculture" regional offices and thus this is the grounds for their claim.

Let's summarize: 

1. The GOVERNMENT in its role with respect to the claimant had a certain fiduciary duty to act in good faith and provide the level of services that the citizen in question had expected
2. When the government failed to execute upon these expectations a breach of implicit contract was triggered 
3. Thus a class action lawsuit was justified as a remedy

Take this framing and apply it to the "DC Opportunity Scholarship Program"

1. The GOVERNMENT has an explicit obligation to provide educational services to the people of Washington DC
2. Most reasonable people will conclude that many Washington DC schools have schools that fail to provide quality education.  
3. Certain parents sought a remedy by moving their children from a failing "government operated school" over to a variety of different schools (private, charter) using an educational voucher to fund these educational services

In this particular case there was not a direct "cash into the pockets" of the aggrieved person.  Instead their demand was to have the "educational services" that they have an implicit right to be provided by a purveyor that has a higher quality standard than does the default option.

Whereas the money to the farmers was seen as an "advancement", the cut in the funding for the DC voucher program was seen by some as a PROTECTION of "Black Interests" from external marauders who's goal is to take control of the academic institutions from "our hands".   Thus they focus on power than they do results.

What we see in both of these cases is the power of the NARRATIVE.  Those who have the eyes balls and the ears of a particular audience are able to spin a situation in a way that is favorable to their interests.

Personally I would rather see $1.25 billion invested into community institutions such as schools than I would see it going into the personal bank accounts of an individual who's main claim was that he was DISCRIMINATED against.   I do credit the DC public schools for one thing - they don't DISCRIMINATE.  All who enter the front doors of some of their schools buildings get treated to an equally inferior education.