TOWARDS THE FINISH LINE: THE WORLD SERIES AND THE FEDERAL ELECTION

The Blue Jays just won the right to continue in the American League Division Series with a score of 5:1 against the Rangers at their turf in Arlington, Texas.  There will be another game tomorrow and if the Blue Jays win that one, they will return to the Rogers Centre for the fifth game in the Series, whereupon if they win this, they move to the winner of the other pair in the American League.  I was alive and aware when the Jays won the World Series in both 1992 and 1993, the latter of which I was in Toronto and witnessed the crazy train going on well past twilight and into the wee hours of the morning.  Since 1993, the Blue Jays did not win past regular season.  Hockey has also started its regular season, whereupon tonight, the Montreal Canadians won the Ottawa Senators in the Eastern Conference.  It is such a good thing to be surrounded by Jays fans when we have baseball in October and fans of any Canadian team going into playoffs.  We make our gentleman's bets (or ladies' bets) on who was going to win, with entire cities exchanging jerseys at the time of the playoffs.  This is all part of the community spirit that many of us enjoy.  However, we enjoy this even if our team does not win the grand prize, being respectively the World Series or the Stanley Cup.  The outcome does not impact on our lives in any meaningful way, whereby we get hurt if we lose or benefit over others if we win (unless you are playing for money, which I don't do).

However, the outcome of federal elections can do just this.  While many see elections as a kind of a playoff season, the debates being the games where there are winners and losers.  However, those watching the elections also realize that from the results, there are real winners and real losers and as Canadians, we need to try to make these elections work for everyone, not just for those that stand to gain the most from a party intent on giving you back even more money that you don't need, somehow convincing the public you will still be spending it in your community despite the fact you already have everything you need/  For the purpose of this post, I want to explain to people what is on offer in general for the federal election and what this means for people in Canada, and especially underlining why it is important to cast your vote even if you don't know who to vote for.

First, the unfortunate focus of the federal parties has been on tax credits.  Tax credits are fine if you have a strong annual income with money left over at the end of every month.  If you use some of this money to pay for your children's participation in sports, you will be able to claim a children's fitness credit, or if you pay upfront for home renovations, you might qualify for a small renovations credit. Tax credits are offered everywhere by the Conservatives, thrown about like candy mostly to their supporters, but at the same time putting on a charade when attempting to address regular Canadians. Unfortunately, many regular Canadians might actually believe that the Conservatives will be handing you a cheque if you fall into an increasing number of categories, while the fact remains that if you are only earning a modest income, you likely cannot pay the upfront costs for children's hockey, home renovations, carpentry tools, etc., so any tax you have to pay will be at its maximum as the Conservatives will not be offering you any cheques or tax reductions just for you being alive.  At the same time, if you are a single earner in an upper middle class family earning at least $93,000 a year on your own, while your spouse stays at home with the kids, you can haul up to $50,000 of your own money (on paper) to your non-earning spouse to save on your taxes for a reduction of almost $2,000. This doesn't assist single earners that earn much less than that.

Further, because the Conservatives do not believe anybody needs child care and that all families have somebody who is able and willing to stay at home for many years to look after their own children, usually the woman (so her income can be further cut back and even demolished upon the 50% chance of your marriage ending in a divorce, but oh well...), they do not support funding daycare for any child.  At the same time, Conservatives reprimand single parents who are stuck on welfare and unable to work because they have no child care.  Their solution is, I suppose, is to find yourself a man who earns a family wage to take care of you.  Good luck.  About the intact families where one earns money from a job and the other is at home because of disability, the losses are borne entirely by the one working as well as the person who is disabled.  This convoluted gift for the wealthy has no benefit whatsoever for caregivers (unless they were able to quit their jobs and look after their loved ones full time, with a tax credit - wow).  If you are a single earner and earn less than $44,000 a year, you won't be getting any help from the Liberals either, as their magically constituted middle class earner earns between about $44,700 and $89,401.  I can't remember the last time I earned more than even $40,000 for my family, so I guess I am stuck with all the taxes, the clawbacks and other punishments I am to tolerate for being married to a man who is disabled.  

The Conservatives have extended the Universal Child Credit Benefit (UCCB) to those adults with children between the ages of seven and eighteen, which is fine, but it is just $60.00, albeit the benefit IS taxable.  Many of Trudeau's middle class families will be losing most of it through taxes at the end of the year.  I presume the Conservatives' intent for this money is for parents to put it into an RESP or something for their children.  Most lower middle and working class families I know do not have the money to put into an RESP.  The money from the UCCB, while appreciated, will likely go towards paying the hydro bill, or paying to put food on the table.  It is impossible to save when you have no money from which to draw from to put into any kind of savings instrument.  At the same time, people are constantly bombarded with talk about how Conservative policies will put "more money in your pocket".  I am saying, this would not put any more money in anybody's pocket who needs it ... and for those that do benefit, they are unlikely to spend it in their communities.  Like the large companies that have already benefited from Liberal and Conservative largesse for years, this money is likely to be hoarded in savings accounts or even in offshore accounts.  How that helps our economy, I am puzzled.  It certainly isn't going to go towards hiring even one additional worker.

The Liberals have a few selective benefits, such as an expanded child benefit that will be targeted to lower and middle class families and add up to more money per child on an annual basis.  They will also tax earnings from those earning $200,000 or more in a new tax bracket at 33%.  Corporate tax rates will remain the same (even though as some pointed out, many wealthy people flow all of their income into a privately held company and draw in accordance to the corporate rate as opposed to their general taxation rate).  That means many millionaires will continue to pay less taxes than the rest of us.  The NDP wants to close a number of loopholes for high earners and hike corporate taxes. Conservatives, of course, want to scare everybody into believing that all the large companies will leave Canada to lower tax havens.  This is not what will move them.  The Trans Pacific Partnership deal likely will eventually move Canadian jobs out of the country, but not a single Conservative or even a Liberal will admit that.  When confronted, the Conservatives promise to pour billions into the dairy, auto and other sensitive industries to help "transition" them under the TPP; little do they admit that not a single penny will land into the pockets of the workers in these industries, just the overpaid and over entitled executives.  Once the TPP takes effect and jobs are lost, those losing their jobs will join the rest of us to compete for the remaining low paid, part-time, unstable jobs that are left, while struggling to make ends meet on less and less money.

The NDP also wants to fund a national childcare scheme, as well as begin talks about home care and a national pharmacare program, although I think the TPP would put a kibosh to that one.  Harper will continue to constrain Canada for years to come, even long after he had been booted out of office, which is better sooner than later.  A national childcare scheme, while a good idea, might only be good a few years down the road after all the provinces and the federal government adopt it, which leaves people needing child care today still lacking.  What I do like about the NDP is that they will stop the income splitting for the families (not the seniors) and will end the extension to $10,000 for the TFSA. An extended TFSA again only benefits wealthy people or at least those that have $10,000 laying around doing nothing that they can plug into one of these accounts.  Most of us just hope to get through each month not falling further into debt.  Who is willing to speak to us about that?

The NDP is the only major party that plans to fully ratify and implement the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  Canada has signed the agreement, but did nothing beyond that, such as setting up an infrastructure so that legislation, programs and services passed by any Canadian government, federal or provincial, pass Charter muster.  This would give us a chance to challenge how disability benefit programs serve to keep people with disabilities in poverty and discourage relationship formation and children staying at home beyond the age of eighteen years.  It might even find a way to allow us to file in tort to get our hard earned retirement savings back, especially among us who were forced to drain them and look forward to retiring under the nearest bridge.  The amount the government provides for basic OAS/GIS is sub-poverty level and given the fact that most health coverage disappears at that stage.  Only the NDP and the Liberals want to increase the GIS and bring retirement age to 65 for those that wish to retire at that time.  The Conservatives are probably fooling a lot of seniors into believing they will be receiving an additional $2,000 annually if they are widowed or otherwise living alone.  This again is a tax credit, which means if you are receiving any GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) as part of your retirement package, you will get nothing.  Again, the better off you are in retirement, the better off the Conservatives want to make you.  To Hell with the growing number of seniors who are retiring in deep poverty.

In this election, don't let the federal Conservatives tell you health care, services for people with disabilities, etc. is only provincial.  If this were true, then what would happen if one of our provinces suddenly decides to opt out of medicare?  If health care were provincial, they'd be able to do that with no strings attached, which is what many Conservatives like to see given they have done nothing during their tenure about enforcing the Canada Health Act (which regulates the delivery and public funding of health care, as well as federal transfers).  The Conservatives plan to slowly reduce the amount of money they transfer to the provinces, despite the ageing population and increased needs, to the extent some say is as much as $36 billion.  If you think you can pay more and more for your needed health care out of pocket, then that is okay for you ... but for the rest of us?  Too bad.  The provinces don't want to raise taxes any more than the feds do, so why does the feds always say health care is provincial?  For exactly that reason!  They want to download health care entirely onto the provinces by withdrawing their funding and not enforcing the Canada Health Act.  Further, the Conservatives have not held a single meeting with provincial premiers on health care since they got into power, so that is because they intend to get rid of it by attrition.

They say services to people with disabilities are provincial.  Canada used to have a Canada Assistance Plan, which regulated welfare payments, which ensured that no province will make deep cuts to the program that would put people's health at risk, that they had a right to retain assets, that they had a right to earn money that would not be deducted, and the right to appeal, among other key requirements, again with penalties for provinces that don't comply.  In 1993, the federal Liberals scrapped the Canada Health Act, which essentially opened the door to many provinces cutting welfare rates, passing workfare requirements, etc.  This is why we are so far behind in Ontario.  A recent article stated that if welfare was retained even at the rate of inflation since Mike Harris came to power, it would be over $962 per person, but it is actually less than $650 per month (in Ontario).  Disability rates were frozen under Harris, which is the same as a cut because the price of housing, food, transportation, clothing and other necessary items goes up, while your income stays the same.  The Conservatives also deepened the regulations which continue to sit today that smother people from ever escaping poverty, unless they immediately find a good paying job with benefits.  We all know where these kinds of jobs had gone.  If you have one, be thankful.  Many of us will never get there.

They also downgraded environmental, food inspection and health regulations, whereby industry is allowed to hire their own "inspectors" and pass on their own discretion.  We all know how well that went with incidents such as Maple Leaf Foods and the listeria crisis and provincially, Walkerton. The Conservatives say it is incompetent staff, but who is setting the standards as to who should be working in these places?  Nobody.  It continues today.  You are a friend of a friend of somebody. That is how you get jobs in most places.

The unfortunate thing is that some people still believe there are "opportunities" out there.  If there were, we would not be in the economic crisis we are in.  People would not be working two or three part-time jobs or trying to survive on one low income, or moving in with parents or friends and relatives because they cannot afford to pay for a roof over their heads.  I would have been able to snag a position between 2000 and 2006 when I sent no less than 800 applications to various jobs for which I qualify, but was denied every single time.  An Adzuna study last year deemed the Niagara Region as having only one job vacancy for every one hundred unemployed job seekers.  The people telling us about these "opportunities" unfortunately already had theirs and most are enjoying at least a semblance of a retirement, something that is becoming more and more at question for most people.

Elections are important.  It is too easy not to vote.  However, political parties and campaigns determine their platforms and priorities by the people that vote, not the people that don't vote.  The political campaigns know each and every poll in every electoral district.  They obtain data from various sources, where they know the age breakdown, ethnic breakdown, average incomes, renter/ owner ratio, etc. for each and every poll.  If it turns out and it does, that those in wealthier homeowner-based neighbourhoods, vote at an average of 85% of their registered voters ... while only twenty percent of registered voters in renter dominant, lower income and high youth polls, it should not surprise you why political candidates say nothing about poverty, housing, tuition fees, etc. because they know who votes and who doesn't.  I do believe if the lower income neighbourhoods, the young people, students, etc. voted at the same percentage as the wealthier and middle class groups, politicians will be falling all over each other to get the "poverty vote", the "housing vote", the "student vote", etc.  Don't believe me?

Ask yourself why Harper has tried to make it harder for many people to exercise their right to vote.  Be a rebel and vote anyways!  Surprise them all!  

THE MYTH OF DRIVING AS A PRIVILEGE WHEN ONLY THE PRIVILEGED CAN DRIVE

Often I attend overcrowded Provincial Offences Courts in the Region, where individuals and companies are charged with various offences.  If you can get past the line-ups to the front to speak to the Prosecutor and wait your turn, quite often the Justice of the Peace explodes into a tirade about how driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right.  Reviewing the dockets on these days is an amazing test of stoicism, whereby one sees one person after the other charged with "driving while under suspension", "driving without a policy of insurance", or various other charges, whereby a failure to deal with as such can result in an automatic suspension of your license.  If people plead guilty to driving while under suspension, the Ministry of Transportation assesses a further six months of license suspension on the convicted defendant.  Defences for this charge are rare, as this offence is considered a "strict liability" offence, which means in essence you should have known better.  In theory, all of this makes sense, but in reality this whole concept needs a rethink.

On the other hand, I come across dozens of individuals in my practice who have been diagnosed with medical conditions that have led to an administrative suspension of their licenses on a temporary or permanent basis.  If people think this only happens to older people, they are mistaken.  Virtually all of those I have dealt with were significantly under sixty five, one being a mere twenty-three years old.  Once again, the Ministry is enforcing this whole theory about driving a vehicle being a privilege, again never questioning what happens to the person or their family once that "privilege" is revoked even on a short term basis.  A few of them come to my office and do get a greater than average chance of being placed on the Ontario Disability Support Program, simply because one is now unemployable because they lost their privilege to drive.  One adjudicator here looked me in the eye and asked me to convince her of this, citing there was "plenty of" transit service in the area.  I then readily produced a large package of advertisements copied from the newspaper, Internet or other job posting services, whereby almost all jobs demand of their candidates a valid G driver's license and usually, daily access to their own vehicle.  I then place the rhetorical question as to where this person is supposed to work if they cannot get their license.  If one thinks the state should not provide for these people, then think again.  If you are an employer, will YOU hire them?

In essence, driving is not a privilege here in Niagara, but nevertheless, the privileged are the only ones allowed to drive and thereby obtain all the benefits arising therefrom.  Those that have never experienced the issues above tend to blame the individuals and have in their mind an idea that they are "better than" those who have had their licenses revoked or suspended.  The truth is most license suspensions are not due to driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but instead unpaid fines and medical reasons.  Many of my clients were not aware they were suspended because for whatever reason, they did not receive the letter in the mail.  In an average community, including Niagara Region, thirty percent of its residents over the age of sixteen do not drive.  Many people do not drive because they cannot afford to own and maintain their own vehicle, which means living here in this region will perpetuate that cycle indefinitely because there are no jobs available to those that cannot or choose not to drive. Employers just assume everybody drives, or they want to exclude the riff raff that doesn't, as those discriminatory requirements are in place in almost every job, not just jobs where the bone fide components largely involve driving.  As a result, the majority of people with disabilities, students, older persons and low income persons are trapped into this legislated cycle of poverty, perpetuated by accepted prejudice and legalized discrimination.

It is not just in employment, non-drivers are discriminated against or treated disdainfully by their community.  In order for a driver to remove their lens of privilege, they need to leave their car at home or dispose of it somewhere for more than a month, and then try to carry on their life regardless of not driving.  I would ask them to transport their children to school, drop them off at daycare (which may or may not be close by or at a bus stop), go to work, attend all of one's work meetings or attendances without a vehicle even if this means going to another city for a meeting, and then after work, return to pick up their kids, stop to grab a few groceries and then go home.  In the evening, after dinner (which means privileged workers get to be home by six), there might be time to take in a movie or go for a quick work out at the gym or the YMCA.  Remember, do not use your vehicle, just go to these places anyways ... enjoy the two hour trip there and the two hour trip back, to such a point where you do not want to go there anymore, as it is too much trouble.

As a non driver, you will eventually discover you cannot just do a grocery run on your way back home, as you do not have the time or the bus fare or flexibility in doing so.  You will find you have to take up one of your precious weekend days to do it, if your job or business allows you to have weekends in the first place.  For those without a vehicle, grocery shopping is a bigger chore than it is for those that do drive.  You can only go to the grocery store every week or every two weeks to do this.  You cannot shop at multiple locations.  Tough luck if there's a special in the meat department at one store and a special on produce in the other.  You can't go to both, because once you leave the first store, there is nowhere to put your groceries while you go to the second store to get the balance of them.  Drivers simply put the groceries from the first store into their trunk, but remember if you are leaving your car at home, there is no trunk, so you have to stick to one place.  Research has shown this will cost you at least 15% more even if you normally purchase the same products from two or three locations.  Once you finish the groceries, you need to get them home.  You only have two hands, so taking them on a bus might be impractical, especially if you live a long way from the grocery store.  Many phone a cab.  Cab companies, while charging an arm and a leg for their service, are not reliable transportation for people who work shifts, taking home groceries, or need transport for medical reasons. CT Scams, dialysis and some other non-emergency medical trips are required on a 24-hour basis.  Drunks, however, get instant service, while it is not unheard of for people to wait at a hospital, a grocery store or elsewhere for two or more hours to get a cab if one comes at all.  That is the kind of "service" and respect people that don't drive get in my own region.

I often hear drivers complain about the cost of gas, insurance, maintenance, etc. for their cars; however, it is more than likely that they have been able to secure employment that pays them enough to cover these expenses, while non-drivers have to pay five to ten times the amount drivers pay on a per kilometer basis and struggle financially.  I have no sympathy for vehicle owners, as they pay much less on a month to month basis than I do to get to fewer places.  In effect, our government, likely through the heavy influence of the auto industry, driving has become a necessity, not just for getting around, but for maintaining one's dignity and belonging to the community one lives in.  After all of these years, I have little attachment to the region because I feel I don't belong here.  I wouldn't miss much if I ever had the funds to move elsewhere.  Non drivers do not go to community events because usually these events are held on statutory holidays, where the transit service is non existent or unreliable.  Relying on other people for transportation is not a dignifying alternative in my region. Most drivers consider it a huge sacrifice to help someone else get somewhere, even if it is to go to the same place they are going anyways.  Non drivers don't have the same ability to use many community services, such as going to garage sales, trading on Kijiji or participating in a swap service, as drivers consider that if they are giving an item away for free, the person wanting it should come to get it.  If all of my transportation needs could be met by me driving my own vehicle, I would actually be able to escape poverty.  This is unfortunately never considered in discussions to find solutions to poverty.

It is harder to get somebody to invest in my business, because they think they will be stuck being a "taxi" for me, or having to sacrifice much of the firm's value on alternative transportation services for myself, thus not allowing the firm to make as much net profit as it would otherwise.  Many of my items have been "returned to sender" because I have been unable to take the full afternoon off to go to the Carlton Street location where the post office seems to send my packages, when in fact I have a post office near my office where it should go instead if I was not present when the package was first delivered.  Other times I had to pay over $20 in taxi fares to do so, so that my afternoon would not be wasted waiting for buses, etc.  To me, my whole community disrespects and treats with impunity non drivers because it could.  They want to force everybody to buy a car, yet thirty percent of the community does not drive and eleven percent do not have access to a vehicle or driver in their household.  I have encountered many members of that eleven percent. Very few are gainfully employed and if so, they are substantially under employed.  If they are young enough, they tend to make plans to leave the region to go elsewhere, because they see others older than themselves stuck here.  I am still trying to figure out what I had done to deserve the kind of maltreatment and disrespect that is rained upon me here in Niagara.

To me, if the Ministry of Transportation wants to maintain its right to decide who can and cannot drive a motor vehicle, and to retain this activity under license and privilege, then it has to provide meaningful, effective and reliable alternatives to those that cannot drive, cannot afford to drive, choose not to drive or who have been suspended for any reason, so these people can access most jobs and get around conveniently.  They would also work with the courts, human rights commissions and other enforcement bodies to ensure that denying people access to employment, other than jobs as drivers (e.g. taxi driver), should be made illegal and such companies would be forced to pay out enough funds so that the non driver can comfortably live without a job.  It should cost employers to deny access to jobs in this way.  If they complain and say, well people have to go here and go there, then too bad - find another way for this to work.  Put the onus on the company to ensure all of its staff can do the essential duties of the job.   Municipalities should also enforce the AODA if cab and private transportation companies even want to keep their license to operate.

For cab companies, I am sorry, but drunks are the last priority for pick-up.  If priorities were exercised properly, and medical, community and employment related trips were prioritized in that order, then drunks will only have to wait an extra ten to fifteen minutes.  This is not an undue hardship on either the drunks or the company itself, as they will still get their fares for all of these rides anyways.  They lose no money.  For priority trips, it should provide a ride within twenty minutes or the ride is free - simple as that.  Dispatchers have access to software where all requests are spelled out and priorities can be taken.  It would not be a substantial hardship to put medical, community (getting groceries) and employment at the top of the list for all dispatchers, while the drunks can wait a few extra minutes and will get taken home as well in a reasonable period of time. The later at night it is, there would be less "priority" trips, so it would not be an undue hardship.  Cab companies will complain about how they will now have to organize their fleets this way, but this is THEIR problem, not mine.  I am tired of waiting and waiting and waiting for taxis while my food is going bad, or in the rain, because some drunk needs to get home from some festival I couldn't get to anyways.

As somebody who has been unable to obtain a driver's license for years due a medical condition, and even if that were resolved, going back to the graduated system in place would be impossible for me at my age.  That should apply strictly for people under twenty five, as most of them still have access to parents that would be willing to assist, even though mine never did help me at all when I was that age (but my understanding is that most people's parents have been there for them and mine were in the minority even for my generation).  If the Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Ministry of Infrastructure and other Ministries think that upgrading RELIABLE alternative transportation for communities is going to cost too much, then they need to reconsider what it costs for the individuals that are deliberately left behind, especially by the Ministry deciding if somebody can or cannot drive ... with the right to make this decision should come the responsibility for ensuring access to jobs and the community for those ruled out of driving.  I don't give a fig about the cost, especially when I have no way of accessing regular employment and enjoying a life where my stress levels can be kept at a minimum.  What if these people ruled out of driving for whatever reason did not want to be on Ontario Works or ODSP, or unemployed?

Then I would say the onus goes back to the government and our policy makers to make driving indeed a REAL CHOICE, and not deprive people of an income just because they cannot, choose not or cannot afford to drive. In my view, if this position were taken by all communities, there will be less dangerous or risky drivers on the road, so it will be much safer for those that do drive.

I am interested in hearing from folks that have concerns about this issue.

FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE GREAT RECESSION IN NIAGARA

Have you read the news lately?

The Bank of Canada, The RBC and TD Canada Trust have arrived at a consensus that Canada is now in a recession. or at least heading for one.  Bank of Canada is considering slashing its bank rate again, following many prior reductions in order to spur more investment.  Polls are suggesting that most Canadians believe we never left the Great Recession.  That Poll, conducted by Pollara states that more than fifty percent of Canadians in mid-2014 believed the economy was shrinking.  However, our Finance Minister Joe Oliver refuses to believe we are in a recession, as his government is slated to go to the polls this fall.  This is despite both private and public sector economists warning that we are either already in a recession, or we are facing one very soon.

One would think that our lower dollar would help resurrect our ailing manufacturing sector, which prior to the 1990's was the main private sector producer of middle-class jobs.  But it seems my spider sense, and those of many others, sees this is not happening.  As extraction, refining and transportation in the oil and gas sector is facing major competition in the South, Alberta is for the first time in many years sliding into a recession as well.  This is being felt by Canadian people across the country, both in their perception of their own economic opportunities, as well as economic growth in general.  For the first time, in May 2015, Albertans went to the polls and elected their first NDP government, after years of iron-clad conservative rule.  This party has also been leading in the polls federally as well.   More than fifty percent of Canadians view the NDP as the best effective change from the current government.  Mulcair's party continues to enjoy a steady lead over the other two main parties.

Recessions affect all of us.  Traditionally, our governments have been cost conscious and tight fisted when it came to spending on programs to relieve the impacts of a recession.  While many on the right would argue that governments cannot spend their way out of a recession,but conversely making cuts and tightening up program spending on vulnerable communities does not 'cure' a recession either.   Over the past few years, more and more commentators and even wealthy business people have come forward to protest what we all knew already:  the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and more and more people are saying this is not a good thing.  Nick Hanauer, a billionaire investor stated in his TED Talk video that when communities don't have consumers to spend their money, business at all levels suffers.  Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social programs supporting the lower income has not ever led to more and better jobs.  In fact, the less money the public has to spend at small businesses in their communities, the less likely these business will hire additional staff.

This issue has been brought to the fore by the Occupy movement that claimed the 1% is taking from the further impoverished 99%.  Hugh Segal, former Conservative Senator, has been raising the spectre once again of a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians.  This would mean creating an income floor that nobody falls below to ensure that nobody lives in poverty and can meet their basic needs.  He critiques the current welfare measures applied today, which do more to discourage work and crush incentive than they lift anybody out of poverty, while citing an unconditional guaranteed annual income for all Canadians will increase local spending, as well as eliminate disincentives for Canadians to accept paid work.  While discussions about a guaranteed annual income (GAI) still need to be focused, issues around amounts required per person, per family or household, as well as what - if any - clawbacks would exist - as the recipients of the GAI begin to increase their paid work - need to be finalized to ensure we are not replacing one bad welfare system with another one.

At the same time, last Sunday a referendum was held in Greece, in which 61% of those who voted elected to say NO to further austerity measured imposed on them by the European Union, European Central Bank and the IMF, from which bridge funding has been provided over the past five years and has not yet been renewed.  Greeks have lived the effects of austerity, enduring deep cuts in pensions, public sector wages and program spending, leaving many people without enough funds to pay for their basic needs.  There have been public suicides, business closures and large public protests, which led to Greece electing a far left government that agreed with its people: austerity has to end.  Greece is in a difficult spot, not necessarily a result of profligacy, but a result of many factors (e.g. poor enforcement of tax collections, insufficient value added tax or VAT, previous attempts at cuts, as well as pressures resulting from having an economy and currency controlled by others -- countries with more stabilized funding and a significant resource base).  More austerity is not going to cure Greece, nor is kicking them out of the "euro: either.  These next few weeks are going to prove interesting as Greece's new government attempts to work with its European partners and creditors to get a plan to get itself out of this mess.

In Canada, our right wing has constantly pushed for further austerity measures on its people; in particular, people who are most vulnerable.  I don't understand how cutting the amounts people get in unemployment insurance, disability and welfare allowances is going to create jobs, or get these people into stable, middle class positions/  I have witnesses the effects of this philosophy over the past ten to fifteen years and have only seen a downward drift in wages, in business confidence and a noticeable spike in social problems (e.g. family breakdown, mental illness, hate crimes, etc.)/  People talk about not having enough to eat and to pay for their housing in the same month, so how would it be possible for them to spend any money at their local restaurant, movie house or bowling alley?  The downward trend is being accompanied by the disappearance of manufacturing jobs and transition to other types of less labour intensive industries, such as the knowledge sector, personal services and to some extent, financial services.  Many jobs are also being automated, leaving many more people out of work now or in the future ...  . a future vision of self-driving cars, cell phone apps, e-mail and video communications, and so forth, eliminate many jobs as we speak.  A recent article in The Atlantic entitled "A World Without Work" hypothesizes further social breakdown and economic crashes if our policy makers are not cognizant about leading interventions to make this transition smoother for all concerned and again, raises the spectre of a GAI.

As the owner of a small legal practice in Niagara, I know that if I were to remain successful and grow my business, as in hiring new people, I need more clients.  That means, I need more people who have discretionary funds to pay my office to assist them in various legal matters.  If government austerity policies continue to shrink the pocketbooks of the middle class, who remain our biggest customer, my business would not be able to function, nor would any other business - apart from discount grocery stores, second hand clothing shops and low cost rentals.  As more people fall into this decline, the demand for these basics will only go up, while supply is limited.  Many anti-poverty spokespersons, most of whom have never been poor themselves, are asked what is needed, their first response is "affordable housing".  While I agree housing is an issue, it is a symptom not the cause of the sorry state of affairs we are in now.  Most people do not want to live with the rules, restrictions and traps offered by 'rent geared to income' housing, while others would like to hang onto the homes they have.  The notion of building more social housing as a salve for poverty's ills is very limited to those that want to and manage to get to the top of extensive wait lists, while others further down the list or those that do not wish to live in social housing are left out.  Those in RGI housing tend to remain in RGI housing, as establishing oneself or re-entering the labour force from social benefits is penalized.

An attack on poverty has to start with income; that is, income that does not squeeze incentive from those in receipt of it, or stigmatize those that need it or who apply for it.  Housing markets that cater to the general population can and will adjust their prices to match the "market" meaning that prices will eventually rise or fall with average income of those that demand the commodity. This relates to talks the mainstream media has about a "housing bubble", which is when the price of housing becomes too high for most people, the prices will naturally fall to a lower equilibrium.  Some economists fear this, as many people have taken advantage of low interest rates and have over-mortgaged themselves, where if the rates ever go up or they re-enter the market, they may find themselves locked out.  When prices go back to equilibrium it may not necessarily be a bad thing, especially as it will bring more renters into the ownership market, leaving more rental housing available to those that need them. The situation as it stands now is wage controls (esp. the "social wage") without price moderation, which is shutting out the poor not only from the economy, but from their communities as well.  Shelter portions of OW and ODSP were last deemed to be adequate at some point in the 1970's, but certainly are insufficient in today's market.  These things tend to segregate a large part of our community, which has been repeatedly found in any academic study I've read, to be polarizing and dysfunctional for the people involved (and with enough people in these situations, there can be a chronic recession - much like we feel today in Niagara region).

We have a federal election coming up.  While I cannot tell you who to vote for, but please do study your candidates' positions on all issues of importance to you and choose the candidate you believe will best get Niagara out of this recession.  Most important -- register to vote, and learn what you need in terms of ID, as some of this had changed.  For agencies and others who work with low income communities, please try to ensure that people that need some type of identification can obtain this identification before they will need it to go out to vote.  Promotion of citizenship at this very crucial time is vitally important if we are ever going to achieve stronger communities.

TARGETING THE MIDDLE CLASS AND OTHER POLITICAL MYTHS

If Canadians were surveyed today as to where they fell in the economic spectrum with respect to class, more than 75% would claim to belong to the "middle class".  Unfortunately, personal impressions and economic reality clash loudly on this question.  What IS the :middle class"?  There really isn't any formal definition of middle class, but examples depicted by the Media.

If you introduced this concept to a room filled with individuals and families living in long-term poverty, while some would think they belong in the "middle class" they really don't.  The only source of information most of these folks can get about the "middle class" is from the Mass Media.  If the Media were to be believed about what constitutes the "middle class", we are talking about families that experience the following and often take for granted and:

1. Live in large, single family homes in clean, safe and enriched neighbourhoods;
2. Enjoy cultural celebrations of their ancestors and family heritage by partaking in community events by enjoying cultural relationships and club memberships;
3. Enjoy family celebrations of common holidays like Christmas and Easter, have the resources to decorate their homes and enjoy hosting extending family during these periods;
4. Have one or more children in the school system who are involved with athletics, drama, music club, student government, among other costly ventures, as well as at least one parent that has the time to participate in their children's schools;
5. Have savings and resources to at least partially fund their children's post-secondary education, and would willingly support their children in this direction;
6. Have resources or benefits from which to draw to cover common childhood and youth medical and dental issues, such as orthodontics, sports medical and training issues, gym memberships and other "extras" that most take for granted;
7. Have at least one or two annual family vacations, which involve visiting the cottage up North or even traveling to Florida or some other similar destination;
8. Have more than one personal vehicle for use by members of the family, with support for the older children to obtain their driver's license and use the family vehicle;
9. Have some contacts which may assist their children in getting a start in the workforce; and
10. Once the children have left the home, the parents continue to have significant resources to spend to either renovate their home to suit their needs as ageing persons or to find a smaller residence to reduce the amount of maintenance required in the home.

Most of these families also have a pool in their backyard, which leads to only a few people raising concerns when the city starts to close outdoor pools in the summer, leaving only "aquatics centers" to use for swimming competitions for middle class households that have the time and resources to support something like this.  I actually heard our local politicians say that more families have backyard pools and the necessity of having municipal pools open has declined.

Articles about employment and human resources issues also address the false middle class environment as well, assuming that workplaces are all large, employing hundreds of people and utilizing several departments and department heads, hence the expression, "climbing the corporate ladder".  Very few articles of this type actually address situations in employers with less than ten or even five persons, as it is assumed that everybody works for large companies.  Even in articles intended to support those who have been laid off appear to reflect this myth about contacting human resources departments and checking company websites for job openings.

First, members of the Mass Media are completely out of touch with the lives of people that do not enjoy most or all of those above things, nor do they realize or ascribe this group of people as being much larger than people want to believe it is.  However, there are more stories coming out about young people leaving college or university, even professionally designated courses, who end up unemployed or under-employed when they come out, hence, their trip to their parents' basement (yet they do not write about those that graduate but do not have parents that would take them back).  The Mass Media wants to keep up the myth that most of us had these amenities growing up, or that those growing up today enjoy these amenities.  As well, the myth is perpetrated that everybody has family to rely on and back them up, even if just on an emotional level.  The writer has not experienced any of the above positive reflections of a so-called "Middle Class" fairyland, although technically, my family of origin was not poor.  We just never enjoyed these other things, probably because less people than the media think have access to these things.

Second, politicians are even more out of touch with the lives of people they are elected to represent than that of the Mass Media.  Politicians have identified a family income of being about $120,000 a year as being "middle class", and the idea that income splitting will benefit many members of this supposed "middle class",  Politicians do not want to hear that most families, other than families of the elite 15%, need two incomes to keep up with even the basics.  There is a prototypical (usually male) breadwinner that earns six figures in one of those rare jobs that can now pass along (on paper) up to $50,000 to his stay-at-home wife to save on taxes.  This policy will cost the government over $2 billion but not put one more cent into the pockets of the real middle class, or into services needed by the rest of us.  Don't be fooled if one of those politicians comes knocking on your door to try to convince you otherwise, especially if you are in a family like I am that hasn't noticed one iota of a positive difference in our well being since Harper took root, other than more costs.

Even Justin Trudeau who purports to speak for the "middle class" has never himself experienced being anything other than from the high priced elite.  Both the Liberals and Conservatives have ran deficits over the past several decades and lately, their answer to these deficits is to further cut the programs that mostly benefit the "middle class" and the lower income individuals and families.  At a provincial level, welfare and disability benefits go as far as they did in the 1970's, while paying today's prices.  Don't kid yourself.  Today, you may have a job, but tomorrow if you lose that job through restructuring, layoff or health issues, you too are more likely to rely on the state for survival, as less and less employers provide the kinds of benefits they did in the past to protect people under these circumstances, and according to some, less people are eligible for even EI benefits. Among those lucky to hold a steady job, which is the minority according to a recent article in the Toronto Star, their wages haven't been keeping up much either.  In my own community, every second person I speak to is receiving Ontario Works, ODSP, OAS/GIS, EI, WSIB, LTD (from their workplace) or similar benefits.  The mere number of these people have brought our average individual and family incomes down substantially, whereby Niagara Region is one of the poorest in Ontario.

One of the issues that is faced in Niagara is that more working poor are nervous about their own futures, so they see a need to attack those in a class below theirs.  Those with jobs call those without jobs "lazy".  Those that drive assume they are better than those that don't.  Those that own their own homes are "better and more stable than" those that rent.  This is felt throughout the community.  Nobody has to say anything, but if you mention to people that you don't drive, or that you rent an apartment (particularly in a co-op or in government housing which is really faux pas here), or that you are having a hard time finding a job, the sarcastic elite of the non-elite tell people there are "help wanted| signs at Tim Horton's, etc.  As if even if every single unemployed person applied for all of these jobs, that every single one of them will be employed ... Yeah, right.

Manufacturing is dead in Ontario, apart from some specialized manufacturing firms requiring high skilled workers and less of them.  Other jobs, such as those in the public or quasi-public sector are under attack by the right.  As if tearing down these jobs and the benefits they offer will increase the number of jobs and improve the benefits for those who are unemployed today ... the attitudes have to change.  The NDP, while they pretend to speak up for the :little guy" tends to associate themselves with organized labour.  While I have no animus towards organized labour, I feel those in unions represent the minority of working people and do not speak whatsoever for those in non-unionized jobs or for those who are self-employed but not running large corporations.  The labour movement if it wants to be successful needs to speak up more for all workers, including self-employed persons, to push for structural changes in our political environment that would guarantee pay, benefits, time off, etc. for all of us ... and not just for those lucky enough to belong to a good union.  Despite all of these issues being to the fore, the most the NDP has ever done about retirement, for example, is to push for the enhancement of the CPP - which will do nothing for the retirement of those who have not worked enough, contributed enough, or were self-employed most of their lives .... it is the OAS/GIS that needs to be substantially increased and restructured to address the retirement needs of people that don't have a defined benefit pension from their workplace or elsewhere.

Other proponents speak about housing as being the issue.  Housing is an issue, but if people had enough money, housing would not be an issue.  Left to the market, under conditions where people have a guaranteed annual income, the market would make necessary adjustments so that housing is available to more people at affordable prices.  Most landlords today tend to measure affordability where the cost of the rent they charge should not be more than thirty to thirty five percent of what a tenant brings in, so in consequence, under a GAI system, this market equilibrium, this "market rent" will be much easier to set.  As for home ownership, this should be made easier for people to get into the market and to maintain their housing after they retire, so people can "age in place".  This is in contrast to these commercials that repeatedly air on TV about retirement homes that cost in the range of $3,000 - $5,000 a month to rich seniors, or Premier Care in Bathing, which provides walk-in luxury tubs, which on TV are only seen being installed in bathrooms the size of most people's living rooms.  An older person on OAS/GIS will never be able to afford these upgrades and thus, will be more likely to be shipped off to a cheap nursing home, where their rights to basic medical care and even life itself might be at issue, based on costs.

After reading this, and our federal election gets under way, we need to ask our politicians what they define as the "middle class" and what the supposed "middle class" families can regularly afford to invest in right now without their help.  Ask if they know what the average family income for your particular neighbourhood is.  Have they researched it, or are their figures stayed from the time they stopped issuing the mandatory long form census?  My bet is that politicians do not really want to talk to you if you ask these questions, because you will challenge their very assumption of who they must speak for if they did get elected.

Some of you reading this might say you don't vote or want to vote because none of the political parties speak for you, but I will tell you one thing ... this is EXACTLY what the elite want.  They want people NOT to vote, so they can continue to put their puppets into power to do more and more bidding for them.  I worked in elections for many years and have found that the percentage of eligible voters in well-off neighbourhoods far exceeds the number of eligible voters in low income neighbourhoods that actually fill a ballot.  Politicians KNOW this, which is why you don't see politicians, or at least most of them, conducting their campaigns in low income neighbourhoods, public housing projects, and so forth.  They will go to where people are most likely to exercise their vote and will target their proposed policies to those that do.  Because politicians know the poor do not vote as much as the wealthier folks, they don't feel obligated to do anything about poverty ... other than address it through criminal avenues, such as law and order provisions against those poor who sleep in the wrong places or do not have anything to eat.  On the contrary, if the poor voted in droves, politicians from all parties will be eager to develop policies to address their concerns ...

In addition to voting, we need to also train new voters to help them understand the impact of proposed policies from all parties and allow them to become informed voters.  As an informed voter, I will not vote Liberal or Conservative in this next election because I see very little for the true "middle class" and even less for the poorest of all.  But even if you exercised your vote for the Marijuana Party or the Rhinoceros Party, political campaign staff will note that you voted and that everybody in your neighbourhood also voted and this means, they will take your needs more seriously next time around.

Your thoughts?

A SPLASH FOR THE RICH FROM THE START OF 2015 ...

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.,