What is a cynic to say when this is a New Year, when bam! ... 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2015, a gift arrived for Canada's wealthiest families with children under eighteen. Coming from a jaded perspective of "fairness", the federal government just threw them all a gift up to $2,000 a year in tax savings, while 85% of Canadian families with children get nothing. Perhaps more money can be written off in daycare costs by some of us, but you have to have the cash first before you can benefit and how are less "entitled" Canadians going to benefit if they: (a) need to work; and (b) cannot afford upfront costs in daycare? I suppose the federal government will tell these parents or parent, in the singular sense, to stay home and raise their kids ... and draw upon their independent wealth that we all supposedly have, or just suck it up and find a "babysitter".
First, the people that benefit the most by this dog's breakfast of a tax giveaway are two parent families, where one stays home to look after the kids and the male (usually) has a job that pays in the six figures. Not exactly the kind of family in my opinion that badly needs this extra money, or any kind of example of a consumer that will spend this money in the community to generate jobs ... the extra money is likely to be thrown into investments or foreign bank accounts, as a family like this is not going to buy more groceries, another car or take more meals out than they already do, just because of this financial infusion. It is a $3 billion drain on our federal budget, money which can be better spend on health care or infrastructure supports. The health care accord between the federal government and its provinces and territories ended last year, which means that the federal government led by a leader that never supported the idea of medicare can feel more free to cut back the transfers it gives to the provinces by way of Canadian Health and Social Transfer, and by way of not enforcing the Canada Health Act to allow provinces to experiment with private health care. This certainly won't bother the family with a six figure income breadwinner as they likely have health, disability and life insurance, while the rest of us will end up paying more out of pocket.
Second, two income families, which is what most families are these days, will not benefit (except where there is a very wide variation of wages, such as a minimum wage worker married to a senior public school teacher that earns over $94,000 a year). There is no rationale for this handout to those richer than the rest of us. Two-income families have much more expenses than those families with a single high income earner. There is transportation, work clothes, lunches out, training and education expenses, as well as daycare, if there are children. Those two items alone take up much more than the $2,000 gift their one income counterparts will be receiving this year (and in most cases, they will be getting a big zero from our federal government). Calls for national child care policy have fallen on deaf ears with this current government. In the eyes of Harper, the best that women can hope for is an iron clad guarantee that their marriage to their sole breadwinner man will last ... something we know is more likely to fail than not. There are reasons women need to go into the paid labour force and remain financially independent, even if her significant other is a good earner.
All of this discussion around the so-called Family Tax Break has been so convoluted by media portrayals of what constitutes an average family. None of us have ever seen real families portrayed in the media as being legitimate, such as those with single parents, those with same sex partners, those where the only breadwinner is supporting the other spouse with a disability, or cases where the total family income is insufficient to meet even basic costs, let alone enough to benefit from any tax breaks ... families that struggle to put food on the table will not be putting their children in hockey or other extracurricular activities. The idea of shuffling kids around in a minivan is completely foreign to many, many Canadian families, yet the media likes to portray this type of family as being "average". Politicians especially of the Christian right in Canada tend to believe they are benefiting all families by only catering to families much like their own. Studies have shown that politicians are more likely to come from high income backgrounds and supportive families, while the majority of Canadians have mixed experiences. Not experiencing a struggle gives politicians no right to determine what rights the rest of us have. They do not understand what the "rest of us" need because they never needed to. Many have never held "real jobs" as your or I refer to them ... having inherited trust funds from their parents, been educated in the best schools, and enjoyed prestigious positions in companies owned or influenced by their parents, and similar situations. These are the types of people that usually complain about high taxes (Canadian Taxpayers' Federation) - folks who are financially secure, often earning six figures or in a high profile profession, such as journalism, law or finance. While I don\t have much information on the demographics of the membership of these groups, but a perusal of their board of directors' thumbnail bios, or by researching the backgrounds of particularly high profile spokespersons for these groups will give you an idea. While this does not determine their personal values or advantages they likely had in reaching the positions they have, nor does it comment on their personal character or even makes a statement against their credibility (as in fact, I do enjoy the writings of many of these same people), but - put it this way, I have yet to see a single parent juggling three jobs and three kids joining an organization like this or caring a whit about what these people have to say.
The Harper Government is expected to hold an election this year. Perhaps, this is why he is throwing goodies at his wealthy supporters at this time. It is important to get these changes in before the election so he can add these things to the list of things he supposedly done for Canadians, yet more and more of us are wondering if we are even living in Canada today, as the Canada of today is so different than the Canada of yesterday. For example, I don't have any faith that there will be any public pensions available for people that are not availing themselves of their own savings or of employer-based pensions. Stephen Harper and his ilk doesn't give two hoots about elderly people, particularly women that don't have access to private pensions. Even if one maxes out their entitlements to OAS, GIS and small amounts of CPP one might be entitled to, these folks will be living in deep poverty. I doubt even this will be around by the time I reach the ever moving target called the age of retirement. I am also finding that more and more health care services are not covered by provincial medicare, which means to many of us, we simply do without ... this doesn't help the man with the abscessed tooth that ended up dying, the woman who mysteriously died after being admitted to hospital with a dental infection, or the patients who are clogging the wait lists for orthopedic care due to the lack of funding for physiotherapy.
I think that among those of us that do not belong to the economic elite better stop voting for politicians that are part of this elite. We need to vote those out that are supported by the elite (such as lobbied by the big oil companies which receive billions of taxpayer dollars in annual subsidies) and those that continue to not give a tinker's damn about the rest of us. I vote municipally for those that are not "too good for" public transportation, and for those that are not interested in closing more schools without examining the impact that it has on housing values in the neighbourhoods serving them. I vote provincially and federally for politicians that once held ordinary jobs, and know what it is like to do so and try to raise a family. I also vote for those that operate small businesses, who did not inherit that business from somebody else. I will support any politician that will actually do something about the increasing gap between the rich and the poor and not just wring their hands over it. For example, stop the 1% from begetting the future 1% through inheritances ... this unearned money over a certain amount should be taxed heavily and perhaps prodigy of the rich might have to try to make it like the rest of us. Start clawing back incomes over $150,000 at a higher rate ... and use the proceeds to invest in lower income people to help them raise their income or create opportunities for themselves, as well as provide a living income for those that cannot do this.
I am not just speaking as somebody who is against wealthy people, because I am not. Higher incomes should be encouraged and the number of high earners should increase. In fact, I had many jobs in the past prior to losing my driver's license that paid quite well, and never did I ever whine about the taxes that I paid during that time including the so called "high income surtax" that the top 10% had to pay at the time, but since reduced. I personally think politicians should ask those coming to them complaining about taxes to require such individuals to disclose their own incomes, both gross and incomes held in wealth, as well as line 150 in the previous year's tax assessment and then asked if they had a choice between earning what they do now and paying what they currently pay in taxes (or a little bit more), or to pay absolutely no taxes and just earn $20,000 a year for all of their needs, including housing, travel, food, etc. and see what they say. For those that say this is an infringement of privacy, please know this is how poor people are treated all the time before they can get one penny of any kind of help, yet the same wealthy people we speak of continue to benefit from much more of our tax dollars, directly or indirectly, than the whole gaggle of poor people in Ontario.,
Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Monday, August 4, 2014
OPEN LETTER TO THE ONTARIO PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP ...
The provincial election has come and gone.
The provincial PC Party lost an election it could have won handily, especially if it proposed to push for good stable government and compassionate programs for those in need. Ontario's population was ready to try something new, especially with the debacle of the gas plants, deleted emails, rising costs of public sector arbitrations, etc. But instead of promising to go slow and steady, you started out by promising to create a million jobs by first cutting one hundred thousand public sector jobs. That didn't go very well with people, as you know that would get the unions against you.
Further, as long as the PC Party of Ontario remains committed to implement many of the policies it has on its website, I will personally continue to engage in ABC (Anybody But Conservative) Campaigns every time there is an election until I see *true* changes in your direction where the results of your policies would not make a significant part of Ontario citizenry feel it doesn't belong and can no longer participate in the community and where people of low incomes would feel they are being punished for a crime they did not commit. This election, many more low income people than before took part in the election. We made sure they all had a way to get to the polls. Almost all of them voted for somebody other than the PC Party. This does not mean I am happy with a Liberal majority either that resulted, but most of the people around me, including many people who would have otherwise considered voting PC did breathe a sigh of relief.
Part of our ABC Campaign was to reach out to various demographics to advise them what life would be like if your policies were put into place. For social assistance and ODSP recipients, I advised them to envision a merged system where people with disabilities would be thought of and seen by the general public to be just as undeserving as those on Ontario Works. I know your government would make no effort to ensure there was seen to be a difference between those in short-term and those in long-term need ... they will all be undeserving in your eyes, as your cohort Tory Coalition PM Cameron has done in the UK. They must have made you proud, as they cut $29 billion from the budgets supporting the poor, disabled and elderly and killed off many of them in the process. That would certainly be your pathway ... you would have everybody on ODSP tested just to see if they can even work a little bit and if so, you would cut their income down and force them to work a lot ... jobs or no jobs. That's why people died in the UK. I will not stand by and allow this to happen in Ontario.
The consequences of a merger of the two programs would also make people on ODSP get treated the same way as people do on Ontario Works, which is a bloody nightmare ... Throughout the election, I've received hundreds of emails and phone calls from people on ODSP, who were worried about being forced to get their income from the municipality, where they recall being on OW years ago and every three months, cut off or suspended ... often leaving them homeless because they had no money to pay the rent. Yes, this happens. I've witnessed this when I watch proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board, almost every week there is somebody that had their SA cheque put on hold by the region and in turn, had no money to pay rent and their landlord is trying to evict them for non-payment. I help people get onto ODSP as part of my practice, and most of my appellants are forced to move three, four or even five times before they get to a hearing one year after applying. Why? The municipality has a tendency to put people's cheques on hold or suspension status for miniscule things ... if we allowed employers to put the paycheques of employees on hold because the employer may have questions about that person's performance, they could be facing the wrath of the Labour Board (as they should). So why do low income people's rights get shoved aside for bureaucratic convenience? Further they feared the debit card debacle.
Unless one is living in subsidized housing which is still a minority of recipients, their housing costs likely exceed if not run double at least to what they are allotted for "shelter" costs. Your debit card plan wanted to force people to use the card only at stores to buy food, etc. and presumably if one is entitled to $479 a month for shelter, they would get this paid directly to one's landlord. (If employers were to do this with employees -- pay the employee's rent directly to their landlords --- there would be hell to pay). What if that person actually pays $700 or $800 for rent and has to pay utilities too? This of course is being passed off as a bright idea as usual with no thought to it, unless your proposed government had plans in the works to force landlords only to charge the shelter allotment maximum for rents and not force tenants to pay for utilities. That is so outrageous because your government certainly does not want to interfere in the business of private businesses, including landlords (despite the fact you want to continue to place all kinds of extra layers of bureaucracy on social assistance and ODSP recipients that want to start or continue to run their own businesses ...).
It comes down to one thing. You are ignoring the Human Rights Code and Charter of Rights with most of your propositions for low income, including disabled and elderly. But then again, people of the 'Tea Party' ilk believe the Charter only applies to them and to corporate interests, not to people who can't afford to speak out for themselves. I speak out because many people who cannot or are afraid to speak to me. I will continue to do so, as long as I am on this planet. The use of debit cards for the purpose you intended is a complete violation of any laws that I am aware of ... there is a presumption of incapacity of those in receipt of benefits, a presumption that people that receive the money will use it improperly ... and then when it comes to businesses and the trades, your party then protests against the nanny state, the College of Trades and other so-called "red tape" your party has deemed to be unnecessarily intrusive, but it is okay to intrude on the rights of those that cannot speak out, who are afraid to speak out ... Again, if it is a nanny state that is unacceptable to businesses, landlords, tradespeople, etc., then a nanny state is unacceptable to the poor - period, no ands, ifs or buts about it. I hope you have this clear.
The cuts you proposed to slay the deficit in a shorter period of time ... you were not clear to us what you will cut or to whom. I do sincerely believe any and all cuts will be against the vulnerable that cannot afford to withstand these cuts, and for those that can? Na da. Your wealthy benefactors cannot pay another penny of taxes? Bullocks! In case you haven't been reading my blogs until now, you know I don't care about the deficit and debt and so forth, as long as these measures are being used as an excuse to attack vulnerable populations. If you want to pay off the debt, get your millionaire and billionaire friends together and get them to pay it off ... leave the rest of us alone! Most of us cannot afford privatized health care. Most of us cannot afford privatized education. Most of us cannot afford hikes in tuition fees. Most of us cannot afford to pay more and more in property taxes, which is the natural consequence of what would happen with your party's habitual concept of downloading everything from housing to social services. This was done under Mike Harris to make your provincial books look better to the bond raters.
Do you really think people who are one or two paycheques away give a damn about what the bond raters think? Do you think anybody who is homeless cares what the bond raters think? Do you think anybody who has a family member, particularly a child, with a health condition that has a treatment that is not covered by health care in Ontario, cares what the bond raters think? If you all care about what they think, then get those that can afford to pay the bill to pay it and stop giving away tax cuts in exchange for nothing but the finger for those of us not in your corporate old boys' club. When I earned good money -- prior to losing my driver's license due to medical conditions -- I didn't care that I had to pay higher taxes than what I did when I earned less. I had more cash flow ... and to me, cash flow is king. I was able to put money down into my RRSP, but a serious trauma/illness happened when I lost my driver's license and therefore, all my post-secondary education, all my advanced skills, all my senior work experience didn't matter anymore ... Employers where I live will not even consider you if you do not drive, even if the job did not involve driving ... this is against the Human Rights Code, but then again, you never liked the Human Rights Code anyways.
In part of your election platform you promised more jobs for people with disabilities. There was never any structure to this plan, just an empty promise. In my case, are you going to bar all employers from discriminating against people that don't drive? Are you going to force employers to hire people off the SA or ODSP rolls? Somehow, I doubt it. Like your predecessor Mike Harris, the empty contract of forcing one to look for and get a job somehow does not include any responsibility or obligation on the employers to hire anybody for such a job. You want people to be responsible? Then make both sides of the contract responsible! Make it meaningful for employers that decide to trump the hiring of people with disabilities and on social services with able-bodied white males ... make it cost them money then. But then again, you don't want to interfere with the rights of private businesses. If so, then stop punishing those that cannot find an employer that is willing to hire them! I personally searched for work for SIX YEARS after I lost my driver's license with not a single offer, when before I lost the license I was always working, always had a job ... that is why I am self-employed because nobody else will give me a job. In other words, a job that will allow me to support my family, not be forced to choose between eating and paying for a roof over my head each month. Before determining what people can live on, make sure you check out the market rents in each community, as well as the price of a healthy diet ...
You made an attack on public pensions. I agree that taxpayers should not be contributing to high priced pensions. However, there needs to be retirement reform in this province and preferably in Canada that would allow everybody to retire in dignity. Because I was forced to spend down all my RRSPs so that my husband can qualify for ODSP during the time I was out of work and still looking, I will never be able to retire ... I can't afford to, nor do I have the means to rebuild my retirement account. I intend to hold the Ontario government accountable for that one day. Your party and likely the current party in government does not want to spend excessively on social programs to keep people alive, but unfortunately these kinds of policies which your government under Harris/Eves and the current one in power continues to endorse leads to continued reliance on public pensions when one retires, rather than allowing one to live more on their own funds and continuing to work as needed to supplement a decent retirement. I simply do not want to compete with my cats for the cat food when I am of age to hang up my shingle. I want to stay in my own home and be able to have the resources to purchase additional services or home renovations to allow me to continue to live in my own home ... because if I cannot, guess what that means? More public money spent on nursing homes, etc. I don't get any of your policies and how cuts would enrich or even give people in dire or straitened circumstances any kind of hope.
Before you try to believe I am a "left winger", I am not partisan at all. I held a great deal of respect for many of your party's elders before your provincial party changed to accommodate the Tea Party down south. I am fabulous at social media and I know tons and tons of people. I know how to express things to get people to support or oppose something. I am not crazy about unions, my position on them however is neutral. If workers want a union, then they should have a right to have one. If they don't, then they should not have one. I've never been in unionized employment, basically because everytime I got out of school looking for a job, they always seemed to be more concerned about hiring those they laid off back when the economy bounced back and not really bring on new people. That is the story of my life, so this doesn't give me a positive connection to unions, but I can't support a government that attacks them either ... If our workers wanted to have the same policies they have in Alabama, I am sure they would be happy to emigrate to the US and move to Alabama. Just don't turn Ontario into another Alabama.
So, when your party goes back to the drawing board, it needs to do a few things to turn its fortunes in Ontario around:
1. Respect the Human Rights Code and Charter of Rights and strengthen the protections people have under these constitutional laws;
2. Stop poor bashing. Stop union bashing. Stop immigration bashing. Stop bashing any minority.
3. Take the time to work with intelligent people to design effective policies and legislation that will work for them. I adhere strongly to the principle "nothing about us, without us". I would be eager to work in your policy development process (paid of course) to ensure that policies are fair to those they affect, as well as supports the goals of self-sufficiency for those that can achieve it.
4. Take the time to develop a democratic process within your party and to potential party participants, so that everybody can feel included in the development of policies and strategies.
5. Retain the word "Progressive" in your party name and make it mean more than just a word. Make your policies progressive and inclusive and ensure that there is no more fear created among people by proposing ill thought out and damaging proposals that impact on the most vulnerable among us.
6. Develop a tax policy that is fair. People who earn more should pay more. There should also be an inheritance tax for estates more than a particular value and monies earned primarily from investments should be taxed at a higher rate than monies earned primarily by salaried or waged income (or in the case of self-employed, income derived directly by goods and services).
I don't want an Ontario that will liken its goals to those of Alabama or in the poorer US states where having no health insurance means a certain demise. I want an Ontario that has a strong system of medicare, a strong social safety net and a strong, robust economy where people can easily move from the lower strata to the higher strata of society, unlike today where most of us who are at the bottom today will likely stay there. I want to see a government that emanates hope, inspiration, as well as compassion. I want to live in a province that works on the world stage, is a strong promoter of local businesses and promoting opportunities for others that want to get into business. I want to live in a province with strong post-secondary institutions that better prepare people for jobs or vocations that are marketable and needed.
To do that, that means people who are of the lowest income strata have to be able to participate in the economy, as consumers ... as well as be able to afford things to help them get ahead, such as good housing, good clothing, a healthy diet, transportation and a phone/internet. I've seen so many people who have been destroyed by poverty. They have lost all hope. The more people we have like this in our community, the more it costs us as taxpayers to keep them alive. If we can prevent people from getting to that state, that is how we will be saving the monies and finding the most efficiencies, as well as getting a greater return,
Contact me through this blog if you have any thoughts.
The provincial PC Party lost an election it could have won handily, especially if it proposed to push for good stable government and compassionate programs for those in need. Ontario's population was ready to try something new, especially with the debacle of the gas plants, deleted emails, rising costs of public sector arbitrations, etc. But instead of promising to go slow and steady, you started out by promising to create a million jobs by first cutting one hundred thousand public sector jobs. That didn't go very well with people, as you know that would get the unions against you.
Further, as long as the PC Party of Ontario remains committed to implement many of the policies it has on its website, I will personally continue to engage in ABC (Anybody But Conservative) Campaigns every time there is an election until I see *true* changes in your direction where the results of your policies would not make a significant part of Ontario citizenry feel it doesn't belong and can no longer participate in the community and where people of low incomes would feel they are being punished for a crime they did not commit. This election, many more low income people than before took part in the election. We made sure they all had a way to get to the polls. Almost all of them voted for somebody other than the PC Party. This does not mean I am happy with a Liberal majority either that resulted, but most of the people around me, including many people who would have otherwise considered voting PC did breathe a sigh of relief.
Part of our ABC Campaign was to reach out to various demographics to advise them what life would be like if your policies were put into place. For social assistance and ODSP recipients, I advised them to envision a merged system where people with disabilities would be thought of and seen by the general public to be just as undeserving as those on Ontario Works. I know your government would make no effort to ensure there was seen to be a difference between those in short-term and those in long-term need ... they will all be undeserving in your eyes, as your cohort Tory Coalition PM Cameron has done in the UK. They must have made you proud, as they cut $29 billion from the budgets supporting the poor, disabled and elderly and killed off many of them in the process. That would certainly be your pathway ... you would have everybody on ODSP tested just to see if they can even work a little bit and if so, you would cut their income down and force them to work a lot ... jobs or no jobs. That's why people died in the UK. I will not stand by and allow this to happen in Ontario.
The consequences of a merger of the two programs would also make people on ODSP get treated the same way as people do on Ontario Works, which is a bloody nightmare ... Throughout the election, I've received hundreds of emails and phone calls from people on ODSP, who were worried about being forced to get their income from the municipality, where they recall being on OW years ago and every three months, cut off or suspended ... often leaving them homeless because they had no money to pay the rent. Yes, this happens. I've witnessed this when I watch proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board, almost every week there is somebody that had their SA cheque put on hold by the region and in turn, had no money to pay rent and their landlord is trying to evict them for non-payment. I help people get onto ODSP as part of my practice, and most of my appellants are forced to move three, four or even five times before they get to a hearing one year after applying. Why? The municipality has a tendency to put people's cheques on hold or suspension status for miniscule things ... if we allowed employers to put the paycheques of employees on hold because the employer may have questions about that person's performance, they could be facing the wrath of the Labour Board (as they should). So why do low income people's rights get shoved aside for bureaucratic convenience? Further they feared the debit card debacle.
Unless one is living in subsidized housing which is still a minority of recipients, their housing costs likely exceed if not run double at least to what they are allotted for "shelter" costs. Your debit card plan wanted to force people to use the card only at stores to buy food, etc. and presumably if one is entitled to $479 a month for shelter, they would get this paid directly to one's landlord. (If employers were to do this with employees -- pay the employee's rent directly to their landlords --- there would be hell to pay). What if that person actually pays $700 or $800 for rent and has to pay utilities too? This of course is being passed off as a bright idea as usual with no thought to it, unless your proposed government had plans in the works to force landlords only to charge the shelter allotment maximum for rents and not force tenants to pay for utilities. That is so outrageous because your government certainly does not want to interfere in the business of private businesses, including landlords (despite the fact you want to continue to place all kinds of extra layers of bureaucracy on social assistance and ODSP recipients that want to start or continue to run their own businesses ...).
It comes down to one thing. You are ignoring the Human Rights Code and Charter of Rights with most of your propositions for low income, including disabled and elderly. But then again, people of the 'Tea Party' ilk believe the Charter only applies to them and to corporate interests, not to people who can't afford to speak out for themselves. I speak out because many people who cannot or are afraid to speak to me. I will continue to do so, as long as I am on this planet. The use of debit cards for the purpose you intended is a complete violation of any laws that I am aware of ... there is a presumption of incapacity of those in receipt of benefits, a presumption that people that receive the money will use it improperly ... and then when it comes to businesses and the trades, your party then protests against the nanny state, the College of Trades and other so-called "red tape" your party has deemed to be unnecessarily intrusive, but it is okay to intrude on the rights of those that cannot speak out, who are afraid to speak out ... Again, if it is a nanny state that is unacceptable to businesses, landlords, tradespeople, etc., then a nanny state is unacceptable to the poor - period, no ands, ifs or buts about it. I hope you have this clear.
The cuts you proposed to slay the deficit in a shorter period of time ... you were not clear to us what you will cut or to whom. I do sincerely believe any and all cuts will be against the vulnerable that cannot afford to withstand these cuts, and for those that can? Na da. Your wealthy benefactors cannot pay another penny of taxes? Bullocks! In case you haven't been reading my blogs until now, you know I don't care about the deficit and debt and so forth, as long as these measures are being used as an excuse to attack vulnerable populations. If you want to pay off the debt, get your millionaire and billionaire friends together and get them to pay it off ... leave the rest of us alone! Most of us cannot afford privatized health care. Most of us cannot afford privatized education. Most of us cannot afford hikes in tuition fees. Most of us cannot afford to pay more and more in property taxes, which is the natural consequence of what would happen with your party's habitual concept of downloading everything from housing to social services. This was done under Mike Harris to make your provincial books look better to the bond raters.
Do you really think people who are one or two paycheques away give a damn about what the bond raters think? Do you think anybody who is homeless cares what the bond raters think? Do you think anybody who has a family member, particularly a child, with a health condition that has a treatment that is not covered by health care in Ontario, cares what the bond raters think? If you all care about what they think, then get those that can afford to pay the bill to pay it and stop giving away tax cuts in exchange for nothing but the finger for those of us not in your corporate old boys' club. When I earned good money -- prior to losing my driver's license due to medical conditions -- I didn't care that I had to pay higher taxes than what I did when I earned less. I had more cash flow ... and to me, cash flow is king. I was able to put money down into my RRSP, but a serious trauma/illness happened when I lost my driver's license and therefore, all my post-secondary education, all my advanced skills, all my senior work experience didn't matter anymore ... Employers where I live will not even consider you if you do not drive, even if the job did not involve driving ... this is against the Human Rights Code, but then again, you never liked the Human Rights Code anyways.
In part of your election platform you promised more jobs for people with disabilities. There was never any structure to this plan, just an empty promise. In my case, are you going to bar all employers from discriminating against people that don't drive? Are you going to force employers to hire people off the SA or ODSP rolls? Somehow, I doubt it. Like your predecessor Mike Harris, the empty contract of forcing one to look for and get a job somehow does not include any responsibility or obligation on the employers to hire anybody for such a job. You want people to be responsible? Then make both sides of the contract responsible! Make it meaningful for employers that decide to trump the hiring of people with disabilities and on social services with able-bodied white males ... make it cost them money then. But then again, you don't want to interfere with the rights of private businesses. If so, then stop punishing those that cannot find an employer that is willing to hire them! I personally searched for work for SIX YEARS after I lost my driver's license with not a single offer, when before I lost the license I was always working, always had a job ... that is why I am self-employed because nobody else will give me a job. In other words, a job that will allow me to support my family, not be forced to choose between eating and paying for a roof over my head each month. Before determining what people can live on, make sure you check out the market rents in each community, as well as the price of a healthy diet ...
You made an attack on public pensions. I agree that taxpayers should not be contributing to high priced pensions. However, there needs to be retirement reform in this province and preferably in Canada that would allow everybody to retire in dignity. Because I was forced to spend down all my RRSPs so that my husband can qualify for ODSP during the time I was out of work and still looking, I will never be able to retire ... I can't afford to, nor do I have the means to rebuild my retirement account. I intend to hold the Ontario government accountable for that one day. Your party and likely the current party in government does not want to spend excessively on social programs to keep people alive, but unfortunately these kinds of policies which your government under Harris/Eves and the current one in power continues to endorse leads to continued reliance on public pensions when one retires, rather than allowing one to live more on their own funds and continuing to work as needed to supplement a decent retirement. I simply do not want to compete with my cats for the cat food when I am of age to hang up my shingle. I want to stay in my own home and be able to have the resources to purchase additional services or home renovations to allow me to continue to live in my own home ... because if I cannot, guess what that means? More public money spent on nursing homes, etc. I don't get any of your policies and how cuts would enrich or even give people in dire or straitened circumstances any kind of hope.
Before you try to believe I am a "left winger", I am not partisan at all. I held a great deal of respect for many of your party's elders before your provincial party changed to accommodate the Tea Party down south. I am fabulous at social media and I know tons and tons of people. I know how to express things to get people to support or oppose something. I am not crazy about unions, my position on them however is neutral. If workers want a union, then they should have a right to have one. If they don't, then they should not have one. I've never been in unionized employment, basically because everytime I got out of school looking for a job, they always seemed to be more concerned about hiring those they laid off back when the economy bounced back and not really bring on new people. That is the story of my life, so this doesn't give me a positive connection to unions, but I can't support a government that attacks them either ... If our workers wanted to have the same policies they have in Alabama, I am sure they would be happy to emigrate to the US and move to Alabama. Just don't turn Ontario into another Alabama.
So, when your party goes back to the drawing board, it needs to do a few things to turn its fortunes in Ontario around:
1. Respect the Human Rights Code and Charter of Rights and strengthen the protections people have under these constitutional laws;
2. Stop poor bashing. Stop union bashing. Stop immigration bashing. Stop bashing any minority.
3. Take the time to work with intelligent people to design effective policies and legislation that will work for them. I adhere strongly to the principle "nothing about us, without us". I would be eager to work in your policy development process (paid of course) to ensure that policies are fair to those they affect, as well as supports the goals of self-sufficiency for those that can achieve it.
4. Take the time to develop a democratic process within your party and to potential party participants, so that everybody can feel included in the development of policies and strategies.
5. Retain the word "Progressive" in your party name and make it mean more than just a word. Make your policies progressive and inclusive and ensure that there is no more fear created among people by proposing ill thought out and damaging proposals that impact on the most vulnerable among us.
6. Develop a tax policy that is fair. People who earn more should pay more. There should also be an inheritance tax for estates more than a particular value and monies earned primarily from investments should be taxed at a higher rate than monies earned primarily by salaried or waged income (or in the case of self-employed, income derived directly by goods and services).
I don't want an Ontario that will liken its goals to those of Alabama or in the poorer US states where having no health insurance means a certain demise. I want an Ontario that has a strong system of medicare, a strong social safety net and a strong, robust economy where people can easily move from the lower strata to the higher strata of society, unlike today where most of us who are at the bottom today will likely stay there. I want to see a government that emanates hope, inspiration, as well as compassion. I want to live in a province that works on the world stage, is a strong promoter of local businesses and promoting opportunities for others that want to get into business. I want to live in a province with strong post-secondary institutions that better prepare people for jobs or vocations that are marketable and needed.
To do that, that means people who are of the lowest income strata have to be able to participate in the economy, as consumers ... as well as be able to afford things to help them get ahead, such as good housing, good clothing, a healthy diet, transportation and a phone/internet. I've seen so many people who have been destroyed by poverty. They have lost all hope. The more people we have like this in our community, the more it costs us as taxpayers to keep them alive. If we can prevent people from getting to that state, that is how we will be saving the monies and finding the most efficiencies, as well as getting a greater return,
Contact me through this blog if you have any thoughts.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
A CRITIC WITH REAL LIVED EXPERIENCE AND THIS ELECTION
Ontario's Premier Kathleen Wynne just produced a budget, tabled it in the legislature and then simply walked down the Hall to the office of Lieutenant Governor David Onley to issue the writs to dissolve the Legislature and hold a general election on June 12, 2014.
I am a cynic when it comes to politics because the kinds of people who get into these decision-making positions don't have a clue as to what their proposals would look like on the ground. Many of them believe people in their communities are good-hearted and empathetic towards those who are less fortunate, but many people like me have met mostly the exceptions. This is why I try to communicate with politicians to help them understand why many of their good intentions go wrong when they hit the ground.
This budget that was just handed down produces mixed results for people receiving social assistance and more corporate welfare to the tune of $2.5 billion dollars to favourite companies in the assumption that jobs will be created, although that assumption is being challenged. Corporate welfare just enriches the company's bottom line and certainly does not keep companies in Ontario, as we've seen with Caterpillar, John Deere, U.S. Steel, among many other companies that picked up stakes and left, while paying company executives rich bonuses with OUR money. All the same while, successive governments have put more and more rules in place to keep people receiving social assistance benefits, or in the case of ODSP -- even being married to somebody on ODSP -- from ever escaping poverty. These government see no problem with throwing millions of dollars at successful companies to ostensibly create jobs, yet they prohibit somebody trying to start a business while in receipt of ODSP (or being married to somebody on ODSP) from hiring people to help them grow the business ... To me, if a government cared about jobs, they would not care where they are coming from, but then again, they want those trying to start a business instead to be fodder for free or low cost labour for employers that do not seem to want to help their employees get a leg up either. As a friend of mine once told me, "Somebody has to be poor". But what if I don't want to be that person? There is virtually no help for anybody that wants to get out of poverty, but plenty of "support:" to keep people in it.
Included in this budget are tax measures to help promote the donation of food to food banks, among other "incentives" to keep the poverty trap in place. To me, government should look at itself and find ways to eliminate the need for food banks to begin with, and not just up the ante so that more year old, tainted, rotten and/or sodium enmeshed foodstuffs make it into the diets of already famished and compromised individuals. With all of these convoluted tax breaks, tax cuts to profitable corporations and continued efforts at corporate welfare, in my view, it would be more productive and CHEAPER just to give people the monies they need to go purchase food for themselves and their families the same way other people do, such as at the supermarket by having the means to do so. However, it seems that our society is so enthralled to maintain the distance and "otherness" between themselves and the poor, that these band aid solutions continue to be the only ones offered, despite their lack of success in achieving any prosperity.
In particular, I am angry at the NDP Party. I am not angry at the NDP Party for being the Opposition and for trying to do good while they continued to prop up the Liberal minority over the past few years, but I am angry as to why they decided to vote down the budget. True, some of the reasons given are darn good reasons to vote against the Liberal Party that seems to want to continue with their austerity agenda on the backs of those that can least afford it, but the NDP (or at least this particular member) expressed anger and disappointment that the Lankin and Sheikh dog and pony show was not implemented, despite the fact the Liberals backed down on its more negative recommendations such as merging Ontario Works and ODSP, which would in essence put people with disabilities back on welfare. I gave up on the Conservatives because they actually not only put a policy paper together to further degrade people on assistance, but actually put forth a private member's bill to merge the two programs.
The reasoning behind the merger, say its proponents is that they believe municipalities are better equipped to know the local labour market and make connections. Are they really? In Niagara, I was forced to attend a "participation agreement" meeting a few years ago with one of their workers and all they had on offer were low paying, insecure and no future jobs that required little or no skills. I have no interest in working on a farm, working in retail, working in janitorial or other similar jobs where they come and they go and there are usually no benefits, or opportunities for advancement. If I did not have high school or even did not complete all the university or college courses that I did, I might think differently, but this one size fits all approach is a non starter with me. Maybe they might be willing to reimburse me for all my tuition, opportunity costs of going to further education and so forth, before trying to assume one can work in a job like that. Maybe politicians should work in these jobs, then perhaps, they might start to understand why this is also a non-starter for many of us. If I want a job through the municipality, they can get me on that pays a salary commensurate with the Sunshine List like the jobs I am trained for but cannot get because I do not drive.
Further, the Conservatives have not given up on the idea of debit cards for people receiving any kind of social assistance, meaning they would only be able to purchase food on them, which means or implies that the "housing portion" would match the maximums that currently exist like $475 for a single person on ODSP to find housing in Ontario, when the average rent is over $800 a month. Unless the Conservatives have plans to force every landlord in Ontario to charge only the social assistance maximums for rent, then this idea is a non starter. Then their next challenge is to force all banks that carry mortgages of people on ODSP, as well as utility companies to keep their costs aligned with social assistance maximums. Further, people should have the right to spend their money as they choose. To deny them this right, does not teach them anything, other than the idea that they are less of a citizen than others. I would not hesitate to challenge such a policy under human rights and the Charter if it is ever proposed.
There are no jobs in this economy. This is a reality that every politician of every stripe seems to be in denial of. Even when the "good jobs" open up, it is more about who you know than what you know that opens that door for you. If you don't drive, especially because of a medical condition, almost all jobs where I live are not open. Self-employment is open, but unfortunately those that are still caught up in the system are denied access to escape poverty in any way possible through self-employment. Some politicians in my own region believe we don't need transit, for example, between cities, because in their minds, "everybody drives" and they themselves have three or four cars parked in their driveway. I am now researching all the politicians in this area and will report on who they are to the best extent to what is available in the media, as well as what they can open up about. I am not saying all politicians are mind numbing and stupid, but if one does wish to run for public office, they should know already how to put themselves into the shoes of the other and make the changes necessary, regardless of what so called "public opinion" looks like (as quite often, especially around social assistance and poverty issues, public opinion is poorly informed).
When I fought for public transit between cities in this region, I received a lot of hate letters from people, almost all of whom I assume drive and will probably drive themselves to their own grave site when they leave this world. A few political types also chimed in about how "nobody" uses the buses and why don't people just move closer to their jobs? Hello? I am self-employed. I work all over the region, so does that mean I should pick up stakes and move every week or so? The chime of the ignorant is so common in this region that it makes me go back to the days when All in the Family and Good Times were popular and the popularization of the welfare myths and racial inferiority were acceptable. This region epitomizes these myths and there is very little out there to challenge them. I am often very depressed because I need to feel I belong somewhere, and in this region thus far, I have been in difficulty of finding anywhere to belong.
I am too well educated to belong in the so called low income population, who are unfortunately mythologized to be under-educated and lack skills. I am not visibly impaired to belong comfortably to Niagara's disability population, which comprises mostly of those with physical handicaps. I am not part of the middle class here in the region that apparently incessantly speak about their next vacation, their son or daughter's graduation and how they will be helping them pay for university or college, or how they intend to put a pool in the backyard of their house or have guests over the following weekend. I don't feel I belong anywhere ... but is there a program or an agency or anybody in this region that can help people feel they belong or be put into a position where they feel they belong somewhere? Of course not! That is why I don't use agencies, because the agencies also do not seem to see beyond the mythologies we are all fed and many of those that work in them are people who have had scant direct and personal experience living in poverty, with a disability or any kind of long-term stigmatizing situation. They never had to dig themselves up from the bottom.
Politicians do not come to my neighbourhood because only about 15% of eligible voters vote where I live. To me, if people choose not to vote, they DO become part of the problem. As somebody who usually works the elections, I know by polling area who and how many vote, although we don't know who voted for whom. Politicians know and receive socioeconomic data, employment data, educational data, age data and so forth, about every single polling district. This data is comprised in part from the Census and Statistics Canada, as well as through surveys sponsored by the political parties themselves. In the way, politicians are human and they will sell to those who will actually vote. If it appears that those in the middle-class and higher are the ones that do most of the voting, then there is no reason whatsoever to cater to those living in poverty or the working class. I do know that even theoretically if every low income person that is eligible to vote comes out to vote, there would be a major shift in our politicians' thinking, from all political parties ... not just the ones we think are most supportive. After all, it was Mike Harris and the Conservatives that moved the equality of gays and lesbians most forward during the 1990's in all their legislative initiatives. Why? Because the gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans community votes ... in blocks.
At the same time, the poor vote in the fewest numbers. To further their plight, the poor tend to eat their own. In a group, I can speak to several individuals who identify themselves as being poor. A few of them will always have somebody, whether they be immigrants, whether they be sex trade workers, or refugees, who have it better than they all do, or they know a "friend of a friend of a friend" who somehow got onto ODSP without having any kind of disability whatsoever, while they themselves struggle on OW and have to fight to get on. This kind of speech I call trash talk. That trash talk has to stop. If the poor community as a whole wants to see their needs met through the political system and their community, they have to stop the trash talk. Hudak attempted to separate unionized and non-unionized workers and public sector and private sector workers by trying to sell us a "right to work" bill that would effectively weaken unions. Those not in unions supported the bill as they feel people in unions get "too much", while those in unions disliked the bill - and as a result, if this infighting would continue, any effectiveness of a pro-worker movement would be diminished. This is the same effect that occurs when poor people trash talk other poor people.
The third thing that poor people fail to do is organize. There are too many poor people that are content to let the agencies speak for them. I have nothing against the agencies, but the agencies do not speak directly for those living in poverty, although they often do have good ideas. Much of their lobbying especially tough economic times, however, tends to be focused on keeping their agencies alive and funded, which may or may not be helpful for the people they work with. That does not put another penny in the pocket of someone who is in deep poverty. Especially anathemic to poor people's movement is the voice of the charitable sector, which hardly ever advocate to ask why people are poor, but to simply solicit more and more donations from the public. The problem with this is that this detracts from the fight to improve the lot of people who are living in poverty. Many members of the public stop caring about poverty issues given they have done "what they could" by donating to some food drive or the Salvation Army's Christmas drive.
The work of these charities is done in good faith, of course ... but it does not lighten the load off the person living in poverty, as they still are not one single step closer to escaping the poverty dragon's jaw. The only solution is to get people to speak for themselves and to facilitate this work. Agencies can lend people their boardrooms or their community meeting rooms to hold meetings to organize events. Agencies can help these emerging associations apply for grant monies to pay for special events and leadership forums. Agencies can become more inclusive, whereby they will examine their own practices and protocols so that barriers to governance and leadership within their own organizations are removed for those that want to join boards or become employed at the agency. Agencies can also organize volunteers to assist their clients in getting out to vote by arranging for rides to the polls, or by providing them with information about each of the candidates that are running in their area. If ID is an issue, identification workshops can be held to ensure that people have the proper ID to vote with. I remember one time working for Elections Canada some of the barriers that owners of residential care homes threw at us to prevent their residents from voting, one of which boldly told us that none of their residents were mentally capable of voting. I remember phoning the district returning officer who then spoke to the manager involved and they had to let us in to enumerate their residents, most of whom definitely did want to vote and were asking us how they can get to the polls. Imagine if all poor and vulnerable people were able to get to the polls and vote. To me, it would make a big difference in terms of political priorities, maybe not right away, but the shift will be felt for years to come.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)