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?
Terror in Parry Sound !
ReplyDeleteLook at the SHAMEFUL way people in Ontario have been treated by
the Liberal and Conservative Party's !
http://youtu.be/nXNDlt7eY0g