RW meta-Talking Point: Those Who Pay Get to Control (Limbaugh, et al) is a Framing Trap

[Land Shark]

Is the provision of any financial assistance (say, for contraceptives) a COMPLETE WAIVER OF PRIVACY?

Aside from Limbaugh's patent offensiveness, this is the "argument" he is making when he suggests posting sex tapes online for all (taxpayers) to see if the government pays for a woman's contraception. Of course, there are lots of medical records and procedures one would not want posted online for legitimate privacy reasons.

Similarly, FoxNews recently queried if parents should not be allowed to view the text messages of their teenagers IF THE PARENTS PAY FOR the cell phone service. But. it seems that the authority and right to know what one's children are doing comes from the status of being a parent, not from PAYING for a cell phone service. Does Fox really mean to suggest that kids with their own income or job may never be supervised by their parents?

Other examples could be given, but the meta-talking point is "those who pay, get to control."

It's easy to push back on that in the context of private medical and sexual matters, but unless we are careful doing so just lands us into the trap of supporting a principle of non-accountability to taxpayers, which implicates everything from overbroad FOIA denials to black ops and secret government programs. Just as with contraception, information of a "sensitive, private or embarrassing nature" should arguably NOT be open to public view, for the same reasons the tapes of sexual activities arguably made possible by government funding should not be aired.

I think the RW talking point writers would be happy to abandon the current Limbaugh position in favor of the likely progressive response: Just because taxpayers pay for something, doesn't mean taxpayers have a right to know. (citing contraceptives as one example)

These Republicans may think they can win with the Limbaugh feint either way (and that's why they tried it in the first place). Given that progressives can reasonably be expected to push back on Limbaugh, right wingers may be expecting a form of victory no matter what happens, and even if it costs Rush a few advertisers. Note how they can at least try to have their cake and eat it too, because one or both of the following is likely to be the apparent outcome of this otherwise ridiculous episode:

1. Denying/deterring Health care (we shouldn't have the government pay for health care, because it's a waiver of privacy)

2. Protecting government unaccountability and secrecy (just because the taxpayer pays, doesn't mean that embarrassing information should be posted on the internet. i.e. there is no taxpayer right to know)

Right wingers are smart enough to know that what flies under the radar and is largely or totally unexamined intellectually is the most powerful "persuader" or reinforcement. This "under the radar" concept, or subintelligitur, in this case is that Paying gives one the right to know.

But when progressives push back on this issue and argue for limits on the right of taxpayers to know how their tax money is spent (such as the case of contraception), republicans will be happy to seize on that "point of agreement" and apply it elsewhere, such as protecting the Bush administration's activities from coming to any further light. The argument then will be that paying taxes does not establish ANY kind of a right to know about embarrassing uses of that tax money.

This is worth thinking about, at least. I'm sure that for Rush Limbaugh it is not simply the testimony of Ms. Fluke that motivates both his ire and his willingness to go out on a limb. But in case it's really just as simple as that, that won't stop the fallout from this issue being used to hurt progressive causes in other contexts, such as those mentioned above.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. If 'those who pay, get to control', then I immediately demand the

return of all US military personnel to these shores and the close of all bases outside the USA.

Also, the destruction of all remote drones, missles, and bombs, land mines, and nukes. I demand an end to war.

[MiniMe]

2. Does he want pics of the proof that I am on bc pills for...

excessive bleeding? Sorry, but that is a legitimate reason to be on the pill. It is none of his business, and it is between me and my doctor.

[Aerows]

4. They don't want to discuss that

They want to run your business because they believe they are entitled to run everyone's business. Note that NO ONE is allowed to run their business, though.

[Land Shark]

15. The "authorities" are those who have money, under their viewpoint

Employers, the 1%, etc.

[Aerows]

16. Not sure why we aren't calling them FRIGHT Wingers

It's apt, and I'm wondering why we give them the dignity of calling them a "party".

[Aerows]

3. Right wingers

are authoritarians. That's what makes them right wingers. By nature, they want control, and to them, might makes right. If you can get away with something, it's your right to do it. They cheer their leaders who espouse this philosophy because they someday hope to have the power to get away with doing anything, too.

[Sparkly]

5. First of all, this idea that it's all "financial assistance"...

... is crap.

The idea that the "government pays" and "the church pays" is screwed up.

And the idea that there's no right to privacy means we should know who's getting Viagra and why ("Just how limp IS your penis? We must see videotapes!&quot as well as hemorrhoidectomies, VD treatments, and removal of ANAL CYSTS.

Let's start with Rush McAnalCyst himself.

[global1]

6. We Taxpayers Pay The Salaries Of These Repug Pols........

How can we extend their 'right to know' argument to them?

[Land Shark]

7. The right to know already exists, but we have to distinguish privacy from publicly funded projects

One way to distinguish the two is to realize that BC is funded with the expectation of privacy, and legitimately so, while there is no reasonable expectation of government unaccountability to the taxpayers, or the notion that taxpayers have a right only to know who they've paid salaries to, but not what they did as employees or agents of the government.

[WingDinger]

8. Where they are heading with this bullshit is, if you recieve any gov monies, you dont vote.

[Sparkly]

9. Health insurance isn't necessarily "government monies."

Am I missing something?

[Land Shark]

10. Those who pay are Qualified to Control, Those who Receive are not. Voter = Controller

I'm not defending the logic of the subject line, but there is a long history in the USA of restriction of the right to vote based on whether one had the "necessary" "independence" to have the power of voting, e.g. landowners were thought to have the necessary independence, while wage working renters were not thought to. Based on this very conservative/old idea, it is not even a stretch to say that recipients of any government money are not qualified to be voters. (this would however, fly in the face of numerous US Supreme Court precedents, though the present court might see fit to dispense with those)

[WingDinger]

13. Those who pay, tell all others what is.

Same principle. Those paid a wage, must adhere to the pipers wishes.

Those getting gov monies, cannot use their vote to get further monies.

[Land Shark]

14. Or. "money rules" n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. This is a red herring.

Your medical insurance is your medical insurance. The fact that the employer provides the pool of applicants to drive individual costs down is immaterial. The premiums the employers pay toward that insurance is compensation. It is what you are paid for working for them. It's not a gift.

You have insurance because you need it. Your employer provides it because he can provide the $500 of income you would otherwise need to buy it yourself for only $300. It's cheaper for him to provide it as a benefit than it would if employees demanded it as cash.

[Land Shark]

12. I agree, but in responding to Limbaugh it's best not to fall into the red herring trap. n/t