MYTHS ABOUT FINANCIAL LITERACY: VIEW FROM THOSE WITH NO MONEY TO MANAGE

Welcome to RRSP Season!  As we leave our holiday season, pack up our Christmas decorations, park the tree by the curb and get back into the business of actually working for a living, we not only bombarded with credit card bills from the Christmas season, we get bombarded by commercials reminding us how we are "richer than we think", or how "banking can be this comfortable".  They then remind us that RRSP deadlines are approaching, usually about the end of February of each year.  Those of us who put our meager pay cheques into our accounts every couple of weeks show up at our bank branch to deposit them are greeted with signs everywhere, reminding everybody about this, as well as how important it is to save for our retirement.  Unfortunately, retirement is quickly becoming a consumer commodity, and no longer a rite of passage, so deserved after many years of hard work either in the labour market, contributing to one's community and/or raising a family.  It is becoming a domain of the rich.

At the same time, we are reminded how profligate we really must be, as financial analysts in the mainstream media constantly berate the majority of Canadians for not having saved enough for our retirement.  We are reminded that the population as a whole is living longer and that most of us will outlive our money if we are too much into spending for today, while ignoring tomorrow.  At the time, everybody from these same analysts to the Governor Bank of Canada warns us that Canadians are underwater with debt, where on average, each Canadian is carrying a debt load that is equivalent to 160% of their annual incomes.  At the same time, the likes of Stephen Harper and his sidekick,James Flaherty tell us how Old Age Security is no longer "sustainable", so we must now delay retirement for everybody until sixty seven, instead of sixty five.  This famous speech by Harper delivered in Davos, Switzerland last year was unprecedented, taking us all by surprise, particularly when Harper campaigned that he was not going to touch Old Age Security.

Aside from the cynicism that those that are making these changes will likely retire with an income most of us can only dream of and would therefore not even be eligible for OAS themselves, this is a ripe attack on the poorest of Canadians, those among us that have no workplace pension or sufficient savings to carry us over. The poorest Canadian seniors are eligible for Old Age Security and a Guaranteed Income Supplement, as well as a small GAINS (Guaranteed Annual Income for Seniors) upon turning sixty five, which at present does not deliver a huge sum, approximately $1,300 a month for a single person.  While those close to retirement today are protected from the later age of retirement, it is those of us in the second half of the so called Baby Boomer generation who will suffer the most.  Our part of this generation was the first to find work that no longer continues to offer benefits, such as pensions, health and dental or disability insurance, so we are told to not only become self sufficient, but to somehow figure out how to save money from a lower average income than our first generation Baby Boomer counterparts.

We are the generation that is getting laid off from our jobs in our late forties, or early fifties, with no realistic prospects to replace the income we lost.  We are the first generation to see pension plans that have been promised to us go bust, when a business makes a decision to go bankrupt or spend these resources elsewhere. Think Nortel, as the best known Canadian example. Despite now being shunted to an even lower income bracket, we still have mortgages to pay, credit card debts, as well as other costs of living that only seem to point in one direction: up.  Harper is not thinking of this group when he talks about how OAS is unsustainable and how we now have to retire later and later, despite our health and financial ability to retire.  As the labour movement continues to badger governments of all stripes to support reform of the Canada Pension Plan system, this would address only part of the problem. With as much as one third of all jobs being non traditional or precarious, and growing more in that direction, more and more workers are unable to make payments of any significant amount into the CPP system anyways.  Financial experts tell us that CPP only replaces 25% of one's pre-retirement income anyways, with the rest to be made up by workplace pensions, OAS and personal savings, which we just stated doesn't exist for most people.

There is a portion of people I work with who have had to drain virtually all of their retirement savings, including all RRSPs, in order to get onto welfare, after their short stint with Employment Insurance did not yield them with any job prospects despite earnestly trying to find work.  For the sake of what was supposed to be "short term" assistance, these folks were pushed in making permanent damage to their credit histories, life chances as well as possibility of even retiring at all, if they should ever re-enter the workforce.  This asset stripping only guarantees that more people will be reliant on the tax base if and when they retire.  Now, with the prospect of having to wait an extra two years to retire, seniors will likely be forced to spend an extra two years on welfare before they can apply for their seniors' benefits.

This trend is happening around us as spin masters continue to control mainstream messages from the media that make it look like everybody is at their earnings peak, have plenty of opportunities and choices in how to "plan" their retirement.  These ads are often followed by commercials featuring luxury vehicles that many of us could only dream of owning.  People like myself wonder who is actually buying these cars, especially when all I hear around me is how this company or that one is laying off dozens or even hundreds of workers, or as more people come into my office trying to battle the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, which to some extent is attempting to mirror its counterparts in the private sector: collecting premiums, but failing or refusing to pay our claims.  This runs counter to compromise made under Meredith in 1915, whereby employers pay into a "no fault" insurance plan, where if any of their employees get injured, they will be compensated by this plan and given health care without the employers risking getting sued.  Many of them are forced to downgrade into much lower paid employment, or to risk re-injuring themselves by returning to their original employer where they hurt themselves.

I don't see the world with rose coloured glasses, nor do I have any religious faith to hold onto, because I am a realist.  I see what I see, and I observe history in the making.  Understanding how history has played out in the past, I certainly am not confident it will play out much better in the future, especially when people who make the decisions about the rest of us do not have to live with the consequences of these decisions.  In a chat with a disgruntled union worker the other day, he reminded me how he tried to get the by-laws changed to impose term limits on union executives, so once they negotiate deals with their employer, they have to someday return to the floor and live with what they just bargained for.  Unfortunately, it seems that the union in question has had the same leadership for many, many years and will probably not change in the near future.  Given the sinecure of these positions, it is hardly likely that these same union leaders and bargaining teams will give a damn about how their negotiations impact on the workers on the floor.

In the meantime, the even less fortunate, those of us that have fallen from the tree, these bright messages about Freedom 55 and travel and leisure in one's "golden years" mean absolutely nothing, as most of us continue to struggle with mortgages, debts and out of pocket health care expenses, that are simply not in our budgets as we attempt to squeeze every penny of our OAS/GIS incomes.  Even many who are presently on ODSP seem to be joyous once they hit sixty five, believing their problems are over, only until they discover they are no longer covered for certain home care services, the 25% portion of assistive devices under the ADP program, or for dental care or eyeglasses.  None of these people will be going away very soon on any kind of vacation.  They will be lucky enough to even hold onto their homes.

At the same time, our governments are throwing good money after seniors that are wealthy enough to afford decent homes and could afford significant renovations up front, in order to benefit from tax credits directed to assist them in remaining in their own homes.  These same seniors are portrayed in such commercials like the Premier Care bath commercials, where a relatively healthy senior lies back in a jacuzzi like setting in a bathroom that is typically larger than most of our living rooms. Low income seniors do not have the same options, even if they are able to hold onto their homes.  However, if they become too ill, they are more likely than wealthier seniors to be shipped off to nursing homes where they get stuck in a room with three other people for the rest of their lives, with only about $30 a week to spend on personal hygiene needs.  Many also languish all day in wet diapers tied down in restraints.  These are not the people that Harper envisions helping to live long and healthy lives.

All I can envision from the powers that be at this stage is a clucking of their tongues, rebuking these unfortunate souls, reprimanding them for not saving enough to pay for their own retirement, or getting themselves too deeply into debt, despite the fact many of these people ended up that way because otherwise, they would not be able to pay the bills to allow them to eat and have a roof over their head in the same month.  At the same time, these same powers that be held publicly paid positions resulting in generous pensions that amount to more than most working people earn in a year, actually wondering why other people can't be more like they were: so damned responsible, parsimonious and careful.  Yeah, sure.

This can be resolved easily.  Publicly funded pensions need to be transformed to defined contribution plans, while political positions should carry no pension entitlements at all.  Politicians should accept whatever options other Canadians are forced to live with in their own retirements.  It pleases me when Hudak speaks of rich public sector pensions given to public sector workers, such as government workers, teachers, fire fighters and others, while those of us with no pension whatsoever have to continue to pay taxes to pay for them to retire in greater dignity than we can ever dream of.  But aside from simply demolishing years of collective agreements for public sector workers, these same politicians also need to increase the rest of our pensions so that nobody retires in poverty, including the widows that never worked outside of the home or people that lived with disabilities that prevented them from working and contributing to their own pensions.

Those of us approaching our fifties are the ones that will have to take the reigns of this issue today to force politicians to come back to earth and rebuild a system of support for seniors that will enable any of us to live comfortably in our "golden years".  Some of you might be wondering if this will cost a fortune, thinking more money from "the taxpayers" will now have to be distributed to more and more people, particularly as those approaching or entering retirement create a bulge in our population demographic.  My belief is that doing this will cut back substantially on the number of seniors forced into nursing homes, or requiring expensive home care for illnesses that could have been prevented by better home environments or healthy diets, etc.  There are many ways this can be financed, not necessarily wholly by tax dollars, but this is a discussion for a different time.  I just don't know why, but this whole talk of RRSPs is depressing to the people I work with that are not allowed to have significant savings, have had to drain their previous retirement accounts, or if they deposit any money into their RDSPs, for the few that qualify to get one, are penalized for the income that this came from, especially if it came from employment.

A major re-think of our social security anybody?  The time is now.

NOW WHO OWNS THIS DEFICIT REALLY?

This was a nasty week, though not too full of surprises from either the federal or the provincial budgets. What bothers me most is how governments lie to their people about these things. They assume voters are stupid and will swallow whatever bit of ideology of the day that seems to make people believe they have to "do their part" in repaying the debts of others. Yes, that is what I said. This deficit is not our debt, at least for most of you reading this here. If your neighbour takes out a mortgage on their home and uses the money to enjoy a pool in their backyard and to create a fireplace in their basement, are you willing to give your neighbour some of your hard earned cash to help him pay off this mortgage? Of course not! So, why are we gladly acceding to paying for debts of the wealthy and the corporate sector, while our own incomes dwindle away year over year?

At the provincial level, the Premier stared at the camera and said in his usual gaze: “Others would make different choices,” Mr. McGuinty said, noting that the previous Progressive Conservative government cut welfare by 22 per cent.

“We are not prepared to balance this budget on the backs of families who may find themselves in difficult circumstances for the time being, or on the backs of our children.”

Yet, this is exactly what the provincial government is doing. As the wealthy and higher corporate elites sleep well this week, knowing the government is not going to be picking their pockets anymore, and in fact will continue to be getting even further "out of their way", the costs will all be borne by the poor and middle class. A single individual on welfare, or what is euphemistically called Ontario Works, gets a total of $599 per month to live on for all of their needs ... that means shelter, utilities, phone, clothing, transportation, and personal hygiene products. Most are lucky if they can even find housing at that price, let alone all the other necessities of life.

A single person on the Ontario Disability Support Pension gets $1,063 per month, also for all of their needs. While better than welfare, most people that get ODSP have major barriers in the paid labour force and often vilified by others, particularly those that think "at least half of those on disability aren't really disabled". I would love to have their internal knowledge of everybody's personal medical history like that. Would work nice in today's Parliament, particularly when vilifying another politician, but not in the streets where it is usually done. The people who say these things usually don't even know the people they are talking about, and use their "friend of a friend" story as statistical research. When you work at the ground level with these people, you know they pay rent and usually have very little for anything else, and they also face huge barriers to a healthy diet.

I argued one time here that the policies of the Ontario government are not unlike genocide in slow motion. Through the death by a thousand cuts, these programs are losing their purchasing power rapidly, leaving the poor in the dust, usually with very serious medical problems that could have been prevented if ... they had a healthy diet, they had safe housing and they had an adequate income. You know these are things our federal Conservatives don't want to hear about either? They just decided to cut the National Council of Welfare, a social policy advisory group that was established in 1969 to advise the government on poverty issues. Between that, and their elimination of the mandatory long form census, it is clear they don't want to know about poverty, and what to do about it, so they can lie to the public as well, about how there are no poor people in Canada. I suppose that might actually come true at some point when they all die of their medical conditions the state is imposing on them, but to me, they are no better than the architects of the Nazi Euthanasia program in the 1930s. It is just that those guys in the 1930s were just in a bloody hurry!

The provincial government is indeed making the poor pay for the tax cuts enjoyed by the wealthy for way too long. They say the budget for social programs is suddenly unsustainable, but their program for all day kindergarten isn't? Giving people on Ontario Works and ODSP a decent raise is unsustainable, but continuing the ongoing corporate welfare cheques is not? The Special Diet Allowance was unsustainable, but somehow a double digit jump in the number of low income people with diabetes, heart disease and other malnutrition-based diseases is not? They want to dump the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit and the Home Repair Benefit, which helped many people on assistance move from slum dwellings, get rid of bedbugs or replace their furniture after an infestation, or leave an abusive relationship, or fix the leaky roof that is causing mould to grow in the children's bedroom. They want to dump it to the municipalities, so they (the municipalities) can decide if and when they are going to do this, and what kind of benefits, if any, they will continue to offer.

Have you ever tried to secure a so-called discretionary benefit from your municipality? I have seen people repeatedly turned down for essential health services, such as physiotherapy, orthotics, mouth guards, dentures and other so called discretionary benefits, which get awarded on the basis of a worker's say so, not on actual medical need. By downloading these benefits, there are no appeal mechanisms available. Many municipalities use the money for other programs, and when one seeks help for these types of programs, they get handed a list of charities to go begging to. I don't know about you, but if somebody is seeking a job, the last thing they need is for a potential employer to know their personal and financial business. The reason I say this here is because the vast majority of these charities are run or led by local business people, aka employers. I met one woman who had been interviewed for a dream job, only to go to the food bank the next day to find the same man who interviewed her the day before stocking shelves at the food bank. The privacy of the rich was one of the reasons why the long form census was abandoned, while the privacy and confidentiality rights of the poor are so casually disregarded.

Hospitals will now get funding based on expertise and numbers, so if a low income person does not happen to live near a busy, urban hospital, their needs will likely not get met. The wealthy don't have to worry about this. They can just cross the border and use their VISA or American Express cards to pay for what they need right away, while the rest of us will be facing longer waits for poorer quality care. The health care sector is personal beef of Harper's. His strategy is to encourage provinces to "experiment" with private health care, and gradually give less and less to the provinces, so they will end up having to consider cuts. This has already been demonstrated with Harper's health care accord he just imposed on the provinces. There is no need for a meeting, he says. He will tell the Council of the Confederation where it's at.

So, wither the hope for the poor? This is no different how than the poor have always been treated. I don't recall massive spending programs to help lift people out of poverty, ever. Yet, it is these very programs that are now getting blamed for causing the deficit. Like, never mind ORNGE, eHealth, OLG and other programs gone mad under the present regime with truck loads of money being given to people that already have enough to do very little, and despite the controversy around any of these programs -- not a single benefactor, including those consultants billing over $3,000 a day for their "expertise" and their choco bites from Tim Hortons, ever had to pay a penny back! Yet when somebody on Ontario Works or ODSP even dares find a penny extra, it is clawed back before it is even noticed.

Dalton McGuinty has lied to us in the past. We know that. However, please know he is now lying to us once again when he says he will not balance the books on the backs of the vulnerable. He just did. It is too late for this friend of a friend of mine who heard "budget rumours" related to housing or something, that led her wrongly to believe she was going to lose her housing subsidy under the budget. She tried to kill herself, and is now in hospital under 24 hour suicide watch. This $800 a day could have went to give her better nutrition through additional funds to help her eat better, or they could have been spent on making necessary repairs in her building so that she can feel more safe ... but no, another $800 is a day is being spent to pay professionals to protect this woman from herself. I am sure there are more out there like this and I would encourage all of you to share your stories here.

The sad fact is austerity agendas do not save the government any money or lead to more job, but in the end, can actually result in the needless misery and death of many people. It is a form of population control. At one time a former Minister of Community and Social Services suddenly announced there were "too many" people on ODSP. I would hate to believe this is the way the government would go in order to reduce these costs, although it is not difficult to imagine. The same debate is going on in the UK, except it has gone beyond debate into three dimensional reality. There are suicides, hate crimes, continuing harassment of people with disabilities, riots, etc. The government of the day wants to cut more taxes, only of course to make matters even worse -- less revenues means less money to spend and less money to spend can aid a government in enforcing their own prejudices.

The federal Conservatives chose the chicken way to get elected by denying they will ever touch old age pensions, but now as far away as Davos, Switzerland, he publicly muses about how the Old Age Security is no longer sustainable. Perhaps, as he tells his banker and other elite friends, most of whom earn too much to even qualify for the Old Age Security anyways, that it is good enough that people are "living longer" and perhaps, they should be working longer - assuming of course, they even have a job to work in, or can work at all. I have no illusions about ever retiring. People my age were literally robbed of our entitlement to a retirement pension by people like Stephen Harper and other proponents of socialism for the rich and austerity for the poor. It is also another way for Harper to "stick it to the provinces" which will now have to carry more people for two years on welfare or ODSP monies.

Unfortunately, this ignorance is just going to spin its course because there are still too many people out there who are "all right Jack", that continue to believe the poor and disadvantaged are there on their own merit, and not due to systemic issues beyond their control. Personally, I am in a bloody hurry too. I am in a hurry to one day see those who today say, "I'm all right Jack" lose the one or two things that are keeping them from joining the breadlines today. That may be their spouse who earns a good income. Marriage isn't guaranteed in stone, girls. Forty to fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. It may be their health. Not everybody can continue to work if they fall ill, and less and less workplaces are offering benefits to those recovering from serious health issues. Welcome to the world of ODSP, folks... the place you turn to on your way down! It can be their job. Many say they are living one or two pay cheques from the streets, and we all know how fragile jobs can be. Caterpillar is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. Maybe tomorrow it will be your boss that comes in to announce that you will have to take a fifty percent cut in pay, or lose your job. Can you survive on fifty percent of your salary? Maybe not. Even if you can, what stops your boss from coming in two years down the line and asking you to take a further fifty percent cut?

People like me have been watching the trends. Former middle class workers who used to be "all right, Jack" are now living out of their cars, losing their homes, and losing their health. Women who used to be self confident in the corporate world are now getting ill, having to rely on social assistance incomes. Because their doctors have nothing more to do for them, many of them have been shipped to nursing homes in their forties, just so they can have three meals a day! Another man I know, a former home builder, is going to lose both of his legs later this year to diabetes, because his disability allowance leaves him less than a hundred dollars a month for food. I wonder how much all of this is costing the public purse.

Perhaps, we need to take another look at that report on the cost of poverty, and how little it would actually cost at the federal level to bring everybody who is currently living in poverty out of poverty and destitution. Oh, I forgot. The National Council of Welfare that produced that federal report is no longer useful, because they do not march to drummer of austerity like the federal government thinks everybody must. I think all of you need to read the links, understand that the government is making policy choices to keep people in poverty, as opposed to it being an inevitable thing. There are countries where poverty is very rare, and such countries have the best economies of the world. Unfortunately, our governments don't want us to know that, because they want us to become more ignorant of the facts in our own country.

However, I refuse to be ignorant. I refuse to stop asking questions. I also refuse to stop demanding that our politicians start representing all Canadians, not just those that can live in comfort this week knowing their pockets will not be picked and that government will just "get out of the way" for them.

Your thoughts?

DOGMA AND PREJUDICE

These are very interesting times.

I just read an article in the online media that those with socially conservative views are disproportionately (though not always) less intelligent than others that do not hold these views. I would assume this group would also fall under the same types of people that believe everything candidates like Stephen Harper feed to them about how tax cuts create jobs, and how we have to keep bowing to the corporate gods, or we will be hit with financial disaster. I didn't buy it then, nor do I buy it now, but then again, I have a higher level of tested intelligence than average.

The actual article raised a level of consternation in the many communities I published it in today, likely for good reason. People who swallow the corporate line, or buy into Christian fundamentalism, don't like to be told they are stupid. They are not stupid, in my view, but the issue of integrative complexity was well known even when I was in university many years ago. At that time, many published studies found a higher level of integrative complexity among those who did not hold extreme views, both on the left or the right, as well as those that were able to acquire critical thinking.

It is unfortunate that most of the politicians elected these days do not appear to have a high level of either integrative complexity or critical thinking skills, especially if the believe the bile they spew out at the voters during elections. It is either that, or they know the largest common denominator of the general public is less educated and they can hire media spin artists to make people believe what they want them to believe. I have a business education, as well as other disciplines, and in one of my year one courses, the professor told us that corporate tax cuts do not lead to more jobs. This professor was an economist, specializing in behavioural economics and fiscal policy. He taught me both micro-economics and macro-economics, as well as a course in how economics impacts on public policy.

I also don't believe anything the fundamentalists try to shove down our throats either, where they want to mix their own personal religious and moral beliefs with the policies of those governing us. We seen what happened when the Women's Christian Temperance Union pushed for and successfully passed prohibition during the 20's and 30's. All this did was create a very large underground and mob-financed network of booze cans and other illicit gathering places for alcohol consumption. One can argue that the main reasons for its success was because they also supported the women's suffragette movement, also supported by other groups.

To me, these people are the same individuals who believe that somehow testing applicants for welfare for drug use is an effective tool to prevent fraud. While many places have implemented this policy, it was found to be an expensive, cumbersome program that yielded few positive results. These people are stingy when it comes to giving people enough to live on and remain healthy, but will spend unknown millions on tests that might result in the denial of benefits to less than 2% of those tested, while at the same time feeding into more misguided public hysteria that the amount of welfare fraud is actually much more than it really is. My suggestion is to test the politicians first, then test everybody else. In fact that was a proposed amendment to another state's provisions to do just that, and bingo, the bill was withdrawn.

Many of these politicians, many of them with limited critical thinking skills, and many born and raised with a silver spoon in their mouth, understand very little about how their laws will impact people on the ground. They talk so much about getting "government" out of the face of the population, yet this right seems to exclude a portion of it: the poor. I tend to be a follower of the categorical imperative, in place by theorists like John Rawls and Immanuel Kant. The categorical imperative, in short, means that if you are going to make a rule, it must have universal application upon both the ruled and those making the rules. Rawls would argue that one making the rules should, in preference, not be aware of their social position or level of power, once the rule was made and passed. The person would not know if they were a king, a peasant, a merchant or a working class person, and as such, would ensure that such a rule would be fair, as it could very well apply to them too. It was the universality of a rule that would place lawmakers at a vulnerable position they only wished to impose on "outsiders", that caused them to withdraw that legislation. The issue here is most social conservative rulers tend to believe these issues do not count for themselves, as they see themselves as being morally superior to others.

At the same time, persons such as myself, neither a ruler or a naive person, can get very irritated and despise getting lied to. During the election campaign, I pretty well let one of the representatives of one of the mainstream parties "have it" when they parroted a clause in their campaign book that if their party got elected to power, they would allow the higher earner of a family to write off up to $50,000 of their income to the lower earning partner, to reduce the total family tax bill. Not only is this an expensive proposition, but it also assumes those that will listen even HAVE $50,000 or more in annual income. I discussed this with people on a Tim Horton trek, which is defined as meeting people at coffee shops, cafes and other low budget eateries to ask them what they thought of this concept. Almost all of them said they did not even earn a total HOUSEHOLD income of $50,000 and they questioned who will actually benefit from a measure like this? According to economist, David McDonald, those individuals earning $100,000 a year or more would benefit the most. My questions upon reading reports on this particular proposal was, where are the $100,000 jobs? Most of the jobs around here pay next to nothing.

The same people proposing this income splitting exercise also push the idea of one parent, usually the women with this particular Christian sect, to stay home and raise the kids, while the man works and brings home the money. Even in situations where a husband actually earns that much, it still isn't right for the woman, as her marriage to him is not guaranteed, his health and his future employment may not be guaranteed and who is to say what will happen if he got hit by a Mack truck the next day? How will she continue to financially keep her family together? Not only is that type of set up scarce as hen's teeth, but it is certainly bad for the female half of the family, should disaster strike. One might argue against divorce, that it is against Biblical principals and so forth, but to me, so what? How does that decrease the divorce rate? How does that decrease spousal and domestic abuse? How does that decrease the chances that the sole earner becomes disabled or absent from the family due to reasons outside of his control?

The problem with Christian fundamentalism is that it is not practical, not realistic and if it were policy, it would be very expensive, if not difficult to enforce. Those espousing these philosophies do not see any difficulty enforcing it, or even want to consider the costs of the same, even as they might consider themselves "fiscal conservatives" as well. To me, this is just hypocrisy at its best, and its precepts only benefit the most powerful people of society.

This is the same about the question of abortion. Many people reading this are horrified by the idea of abortion. They listen to the "right to life" and evangelical types carry on about how women should not be permitted to have an abortion, yet their own precepts if you believe Thomas Aquinas that stated that a fetus was not a "person" until it was ensouled, which meant that life in Aquinas' vision started at some point well after conception. Certainly, the Catholics and other fundamentalist Christians felt abortion was always wrong and sinful, but they certainly disagreed fundamentally as to when life actually began. On a practical basis, the pro-lifers do not have an answer as to how they will physically prevent women from acquiring abortions they feel they need anyways. One wonders if these same people, who believe so highly in the right to life, and for the welfare of the women involved, would recommend we return to the days of back street abortionists that ply their trade with coat hangers and Coca cola douches.

I once had a discussion with my mother who is devoutly religious in the Jehovah's Witness faith. She complained about the increasing numbers of people in our country who came from abroad and have learned different customs, practices and ideas, and want to continue to practice them here. She is one of those people who think if you come to Canada, you do everything the rest of us do. Unfortunately, if this was taken literally, we would not allow Muslims to practice their faith, wear their head coverings, or take part in their Friday prayers. Doing this is "not Canadian". So, is it okay for somebody like my own family members to tell somebody else who feels and believes as much in their own religion and culture as she does hers, that they should not be able to practice it once they cross our borders? The shoe can easily be on the other foot, and she as a Jehovah's Witness is familiar with the history of persecution against her own religion. These acts took place in Canada, and in other countries, they were even more extreme, and sometimes people of this faith were put to death. In the Holocaust, they were also a group of people targeted for round up for the death camps. Of course, this is NOT okay ... so why is it okay to attack people of OTHER religious faiths? As we speak, there is a growing animus in North America and Great Britain against Muslims, both within and outside their faith. This is no more right than the prior attacks on persons of Jehovah's Witness faith.

As a non religious person, I sometimes feel under attack because some religious people, particularly those of more fundamental sects, believe it is wrong not to be a believer. I would not call myself an Atheist either, but I just don't have the strong "black and white" narrow integrative concepts of right and wrong. Atheists and other non believers are seen somehow as morally inept, approving of all sorts of sins and iniquities. This is certainly far from true, as most non believers are very highly moral and ethical. We just don't get fed our moral and ethical concepts at church, only to do the opposite at home.

There are other people who push for "freedom of speech" which is just a disguise for a push for their right to express, provoke and promote hateful and discriminatory behaviour towards others. They want to remove the right of human rights commissions to find certain persons guilty of promoting hateful speech, or printing it. While there are some issues with how hateful speech and expression is defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, it needs to be revised, not repealed. Freedom of speech is a fine thing, but there are limits. One cannot print or say something damaging about another person the writer or speaker knows to be untrue. One cannot cry "fire" at the back of a crowded movie theatre. One cannot also willfully promote the hatred against any particular group. However, these people try to argue they are only saying things, not doing anything. The evidence shows that hate speech hurts.

There were a few nut bars in the 1980s, for example, that went around telling everybody, including teaching children at schools, that the Holocaust during the second world war did not happen. Along with these statements were very disparaging statements about the Jewish community itself. Does free speech include something like this, which would certainly spark very negative behaviour by some persons against members of the targeted group? Evidence of this is well known in Great Britain since persons with disabilities were removed from society's idea of being a protected class, and the number of hate crimes against persons with disabilities has been growing, along with policy makers more willing to deny benefits for them and force them into deeper poverty and deprivation. Writer Katharine Quarmby has tracked the history of hate crimes, how they evolved from words, attitudes and prejudices and then into actions against individuals with disabilities. Almost 300,000 persons with disabilities were exterminated in Nazi Germany as being "life unworthy of life", and well before Hitler's campaign against the Jews began. The public attitude towards doing this was softened through a massive propaganda campaign, not unlike what we hear about today, about how persons with disabilities aren't "contributing" to society, and how wasteful it was to allow them to have and raise children. In Great Britain, these spiteful attitudes have made it to policy makers and disability allowances have been largely discontinued for a significant portion of the population of persons with disabilities. Very few of them are moving into jobs, as policy makers had hoped, but instead are committing suicide, getting involved with other crimes and losing their housing. Many advocates in Ontario are fearing the same attitudes might be imported here.

Personally I do not like most of the conservative candidates of today, because most like to outdo one another as to how much they want to trash the poor, attack racial and religious minorities, and so forth with proposed policies. In the United States, a good watch of the Republican primaries and the debates between each of the candidates to lead the next election against the current President Barack Obama should be instructive for people who are concerned about our future. Many want creationism to be replace teaching about evolution in our schools. They want to run the country on "Christian principles" (or more accurately, THEIR own Christian principles). They want to continuously lower taxes on the wealthy and on profitable corporations, thinking somehow this will spur an economic recovery. (Newsflash - corporate and personal taxes have been declining for the past twenty years, and it doesn't look like the US is in any kind of recovery yet). Listen to their arguments with an open mind. While you may believe some of their moral principles, ask yourself whether forcing the same on a diverse population is really the best thing to do. If I were in the US, I would probably have to vote for Obama, not because I necessarily like his record, but because I want to keep something more horrible out of my life.

Unfortunately, much of the Republican type dogma has come to Canada and into Ontario, where corporate taxes have been cut without consideration of their impact on the increase of the size of our deficit over the years. Only recently we got a report that states that corporations are not using their gains to hire new people or increase investments. It's not that they ever did, as my economics professor taught me when I first started my business courses in the 80's. In fact, many of them, including Electro Motive Diesel Company, or EMD (now under Caterpillar) have locked out their workers and are taking the companies back to their headquarters. In the case of EMD, this is Indiana. EMD took a billion dollar tax cut before all of this happened, now it just wants to shed its 500 workers and move on.

There are lots of connections between prejudices, low education and a lack of forethought. I do believe if EVERYBODY sought to educate themselves about these issues, and questioned their political representatives about them, and make them answer these questions truthfully, we might just start to see more accountability and less lies being fed to us.

Your thoughts?

ANOTHER FEDERAL ELECTION GONE - NOW WHAT?

The recent federal election was a very difficult one for many people. We heard about many of the "dirty tricks" being played such as midnight phone calls, phony calls from Election Canada to tell people their polling station is moved, or false reports that one can only use Photo ID to vote with. These tricks were well publicized, and hopefully being seriously investigated and charges laid where possible. However, there were other things going on that were less publicized, and has only reiterated the position I have taken in my last blog entry, "From We to Me". Over the course of the election, there were reports of low income people getting "egged", racist remarks being openly shared in public forums and poor bashing once again becoming a national sport. These techniques, as well as the dirty tricks cited above, are no less of a vote suppressor for those that might otherwise have exercised their right to vote.

We hear about stories in developing countries, where their democracies are very fragile, where people are getting threatened if they dare oppose the ruling party, or they get rewards for promoting the dictator for yet another term. People get punished in these countries. Many have lost their jobs for exercising their right to vote for an opponent, others had their cars bombed or their homes broken into. In this election, right here in Canada, people's cars were vandalized if they were parked in a yard where a political opponent is being supported. There were also allegations of a fire bombing, as well as bar fights over the election. These things that happened here can only move a small amount further, and our country's democratic principles are no further advanced than those of a banana republic.

Unfortunately, many of the problems that surfaced during the election did not stop. Ardent supporters of the now majority ruling Conservatives are holding it high on top of others that they are "better" than those that supported other parties, morally superior because they supported the "stability" of Harper ... one of them even commented that we now don't have to worry about having regular elections. Hey, dictatorships have that too, where people don't have to worry about elections, because they are never called and when they are, they are certainly rigged in favour of the incumbent. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghadafi, Robert Magube, Fidel Castro, and many others felt they did not need elections. Why not? They were costly, inconvenient and who wants to bother with them anyways?

The poor bashing sadly continues too. It is so remarkable how the wealthier classes refer to "their" money, when in fact the majority is inherited or otherwise unearned through investments or other means. I stated in another blog why the wealthy do not work as hard as the rest of us, and please don't try to disabuse me of that notion, as I know too many people who worked themselves to death practically, who were by no means wealthy, while wealthy people would complain that increased taxes would only curb their lifestyle somewhat. Again, this is a pestering inconvenience for them to pay their own way in the society in which they live.

Throughout the election, I asked people if they can afford private health care. Ardent supporters vehemently deny that Harper or anybody in his government will ever cut health care. Well, there is plenty of history on the web with Harper's name on it, and his continued antipathy towards medicare. Ardent supporters did not want to read these articles, as they were blinded by ... whatever it is that made them feel Harper was so inviolate. Some would argue that having a parallel private and public health care would lessen the wait list for the ones that cannot pay. Well, this has been tried in many jurisdictions, and unfortunately, this only made those that cannot pay wait much longer and in some circumstances, get inferior treatment. Many of these same people blocked me on various websites because they could not win an argument with me. I don't care. I do not need their ignorance on my computer anyways; let them go pollute other people's mind space.

One person tried to get me to commit to six months of this government and then return to say whether it was good or not. I'm sorry, we ALREADY HAD FIVE YEARS of this same government and what is going to happen in the next four is the same that has happened in the last five years, except the ongoing hyper-partisanship and destruction of opposition opinions will be on steroids. This already happened, as Harper could not even give Parliament a chance to open or even give a Speech from the Throne yet, but he had already re-appointed two Senators that resigned their positions to run in this election and they lost, only to be put right back in the unelected, unaccountable Senate.

In 2006, Harper ran a reasonable campaign to clean up the Senate, clean up spending, make government more accountable, make government transparent, make leaders in the government accountable to their constituents, and to reign in things like AdScams under the Liberals. I was one of those that was fooled by this platform, and they got my vote in 2006. They had FIVE YEARS to make it right, and they only made these things worse. We have government hiding key issues about Afghanistan, the G20, secret papers that have been left with a Cabinet Minister's girlfriend, a Cabinet Minister that ordered a document altered after it had been signed by the parties, and then lied about it, and lack of answers regarding how much corporate tax cuts, fighter jets and private prisons are going to cost the taxpayer. They were found to be in contempt of Parliament, yet they get elected again.

My faith in some Canadians is not very high. As somebody coming into my polling station on election day jokingly suggested, voters should have to pass a basic civics and economics test before they get handed a ballot. Of course, as electionn workers, all we can do is smile and take their identification, etc. and send them to vote. Apparently, there were pro-Harper ads playing on the radio the day of the election, which is apparently against the elections law. But they got the majority now, so nothing is going to get done about that either.

People around me are nervous about Harper. I tell them there is probably not much we can do, other than watch what other people are finally doing in other parts of the world and standing up to their governments. Harper is going to make us all pay for the billions of dollars in handouts to his corporate friends, corporate tax cuts, untendered contracts, among other things, so that the deficit that was created from these ill informed decisions will be paid for by the rest of us that neither created the deficit or had any benefit whatsoever from the spending that led to it. I ask my ardent Conservative "friends" if they can identify ONE job that was created as a result of a corporate tax cut, they couldn't even do that. Because they know that taxes are only applied AFTER the jobs, equipment, research and development, administration, etc. are paid for ...

I am far too educated and intelligent to believe in any of this bunk anymore. In some ways, I wonder why I even bother voting, and perhaps I should join the growing group of non-voters who are fed up with this archaic, corruptible "first past the post" system that can only be manipulated to lead to huge majority governments with far less than 51% of the popular vote. With more people voting against him than for him, Harper SHOULD try to govern for all of us, but I am not holding my breath.

My guess is people will be understanding what I, as well as many other Canadians have been saying about this, in about two or three years when they find their economic circumstances have not improved one iota, and they seem to be paying more and more for the same basket of goods and services and paying more out of pocket for health care and other so-called "public services".

THE MOVE FROM A "WE" TO "ME" GENERATION

Let me say something here about this current election. It is a fight or a clash of values of Canadians. The rhetoric and personal agendas has never been so intense in prior elections, even the one in 2008.

I consider myself a follower of politics, at all levels of government, from local, to regional, provincial to federal. I also vote pragmatically, not ideologically. I base my positions on issues only on peer reviewed research and broader based objectives that have something to do with the greater interest of the Canadian public, as opposed to what is great for me. If I voted on the latter, actually no party would speak to my issues, so I probably wouldn't be voting or I'd spoil my ballot. But because I vote for what I see as the greatest interest for the Canadian public, that means I will reject policies that will only benefit high income earners, people of particular ethnic or religious agendas (such as the religious right), or people who believe in "my party right or wrong" (and remaining uncritical no matter how many scandals that party has been involved in or is accused of engineering).

I consider myself intelligent and well-educated and I do approach this election with substantial critical analysis. I live in a region that has a 12.5% post-secondary education rate, below the norm of 27% average across Ontario. Being one of the 12.5%is uncomfortable to say the least, even more uncomfortable having an IQ that is at least well above the average. With it comes a critical thinking capacity often lacking, even in some of the politicians. I also know that some polling research has been done to show that those that are better educated (at a university level), female and urban dwellers tend to vote against Conservative parties. Those with higher incomes also tend to vote Conservative, but this was strangely not universal.

My whole problem with the Conservative Party of Canada is that it is not actually a Conservative Party. The federal Progressive Conservative Party founded under the auspices of John A. McDonald has no ties to the new Conservative Party whatsoever. As a Toronto-based colleague advised me, the new Conservative Party is no more than "Republican wannabes" that desire to move our nation so far to the right that it loses complete touch with the people. They desire to become American. The current Conservative Party started from a western rump of dissatisfied PCs known as the Reform Party, and to some extent, the Western Separatist Party. This Party formed about the same time the Bloc Quebecois formed and for the same reasons, but philosophies were regionally biased.

The Progressive Conservatives under Brian Mulroney ended up to be so unpopular with the Canadian people, not because of any right wing politics (as he wasn't really that far to the right), but because of its accent on federalism (as per Bloc Quebecois, aka Lucien Bouchard's departure from the federal party to lead the new Quebec-based party). As well, people hated Mulroney because he was the father of the GST, which he used his majority to cram through the Senate and use a special clause of the Constitution to add eight more Senators to force this agenda. Others found him unpopular as well, due to his blatant abuse of Parliament and excessive patronage appointments. (Does this all sound familiar, Harper watchers?) After he resigned as leader, Kim Campbell succeeded him as Leader and the subsequent election she called found the PCs with only two seats to its name.

With the growth of the Western rump known as the Reform Party, initially under Preston Manning, and then later under Stockwell Day, and the frustration among moderate Conservatives in Canada seeing a "split vote" among the so-called right, a demand to "unite the right" took place. The Progressive Conservatives were right of centre, but did largely govern from the centre. The Reform Party wanted bold new policies, including many that challenge Canadian values outright, such as the right to universal health care, maintaining an equalization formula between Ottawa and its poorer provinces, and maintaining national standards. Canada was also valued as a peacekeeping nation, as opposed to an instigator of war.

Stephen Harper was never a member of the Progressive Conservative party, or at least had any influence. He did however become a policy advisor to the Reform Party. As policy advisor to the Reform Party, he was critical of the Canada Health Act, as it smacked of "socialism". He would make presentations to various audiences about how Canada had to do away with the Canada Health Act and experiment with privatization. These remarks were not made in an intellectually competent manner, such as those coming from some health economists like Robert Evans might in trying to raise issues in how health care delivery may need to change over time to accommodate an ageing population, to focus on the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases, to keep drug costs down, etc. Harper's proposal was to scrap universality, invite private health care, and allow people to carry private health insurance for the basics, despite the fact that private insurance will reject almost anybody with pre-existing health conditions (unless you are part of a very large group, such as a large employer like General Motors or the school board). He also attacked the vast majority of Canadians in a famous 1997 speech.

When Stockwell Day became leader of the Reform Party and was forced to express his allegiance to the Canada Health Act (or this would have gone to millions of voters on national television if he didn't), Harper scurried out of there to his new job as Vice President of the anti-medicare and secretive organization, National Citizens Coalition. The National Citizens Coalition, founded by Colin Brown, a very wealthy insurance executive, in 1967, was set up specifically with the goals of preventing the passage of medicare in 1967. While it continues to push for private health care, the NCC has taken up a number of other causes as well. One such cause was the case of Stephen Harper versus Canada, which was an attempt on Harper's part on behalf of the National Citizens Coalition to fight spending limits by third parties in election campaigns. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada put a kibosh to that idea, but this is certainly an idea that Harper will likely take with him to a majority government.

Do Canadians feel it is okay to have large corporations fill the election coffers of candidates and political parties and "buy" off politicians to do their bidding for them? If this decision were to be reversed, say by a new law that Harper might try to pass under a majority, how fast do you think private insurance companies will be paying millions, if not billions of dollars, into a campaign to scrap medicare? Don't think it can't be done. In the U.S., where such spending limits do not exist, the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry and other related industries have fought and successfully prevented Obama from reforming health care to enable all Americans to access at least basic care.

So, when the opportunity presented itself, Harper left the NCC to join the Alliance, which was then supposed to be more of an amalgmation of the Reform and some PC politicians. As the head of the Alliance, Harper asked why Canada could not join the Americans in the Iraq war. Remember that war that was sparked as a result of a belief they will find "weapons of mass destruction", and even when it was proven there were no such weapons, U.S. President G. W. Bush started the war anyways. It was the Canadian Liberal government at that time that said no to the Iraq war, and thus, possibly another economic sinkhole not unlike Vietnam in the late 1960's-early 1970's. Unfortunately, the Progressive Conservative Party under the then leadership of Peter McKay dissolved into the Alliance in the awkward merger of the "right". Harper's desire for war appears to current with his government's push to pay up to $30 billion on jet fighters, despite his concern about a deficit on the other side of his mouth.

The effect of this is that most of the politicians of the PC era literally disappeared or were forcibly swallowed by the merger. To add to it, the leadership style of Stephen Harper did not include any of the "big tent" style often valued by its former Progressive Conservative Party. As the head of the Alliance, he pushed a law and order agenda, and when the Liberals put forth the gun registry bill, Stephen Harper allowed a free vote on this, and he himself voted in favour of the registry, not once, but twice, before finally changing his vote for the third and final reading, to opposition of this bill. (Yet in 2010 and 2011, he called other MPs a "flip flop" for changing their minds on the gun registry - as hypocritical as he is).

Eventually the Canadian Alliance voted to change its name to more closely reflect its politics. In coming together on this, the new party's founders wanted to recognize the different members of the founding "coalition of the right". It started as the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, or C-R-A-P, for short, which was shortly thereafter caught on time, until the name "Conservative Party of Canada" was accepted. However, like Joe Clark and others, people should not be fooled by the name of the new party; it is just the Reform Party in new clothes.

The new coalition of the right made it difficult for the Liberals to win a subsequent majority under Paul Martin. However, Paul Martin did win in 2004, and it was then that Stephen Harper got together with Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Deceppe, and new NDP Leader Jack Layton, to form some type of "alternative" to Paul Martin's then minority government. This was in an agreement with Stephen Harper's name on it, and he certainly would not have signed such a document had it meant that he would not become the new Prime Minister. Harper will continue to this day to say he was not planning to take over as Prime Minister, although the other two players who were at these meetings, recall this was exactly Harper's plan. For him to be hypercritical of so-called coalitions today when he himself attempted one in 2004, is more like the kettle calling itself black. I am also certain that if Ignatieff won a minority Liberal government, Harper would attempt something similar. Don't kid yourself. Harper's obsession with coalition has nothing to do with this - he wants to keep voters' minds off health care and other important issues.

The Liberals were unable to play down the Adscam and Sponsorgate scandals, which led to Harper's first term in Parliament. He won a minority government in 2006. During his first term, he ran a relatively centrist government as he was cautious, not wanting to see the opposition vote him out on a motion of non-confidence. However, as time went on, the partisan games grew. Into the second term of a minority government, Harper wanted to present more of his true colours and play to his base, especially those in Alberta. In the fall of 2008, the global economy sank, at least in part due to laissez-faire banking regulations in the US and extensive bank bailouts all over the world. Canada still got hit, as did almost all of the western world.

In the fall, Finance Minister James Flaherty, the then see-no-evil, hear-no-evil and speak-no-evil (especially the "r" word), and Harper wanting to throw a "trial balloon" as a first step to his eventual goal of allowing wealthy contributors unlimited access to the electoral process (by first removing the per vote subsidy given to all political parties garnering more than 2% of political support), wanted to table an economic statement. There was no mention of job losses or even a dip in the economy in this Economic Statement. When Stephen Harper went on tour to Welland right after John Deere closed its doors to over 800 workers, Harper told the news media his priority for the area was to intoduce a ban on candy flavoured cigarettes.

In return for his denial of these job losses, Harper was then faced with the potential of a Liberal led coalition government propped up by the NDP and supported in confidence votes only by the Bloc Quebecois. Instead of facing the crucial vote that would have likely resulted in that coalition government, Harper ran away from this conflict and prorogued Parliament instead. During the prorogue, Harper had no choice but to listen to the opposition parties and his government put out the economic stimulus budget of 2009. While there was some benefit to infrastructure investments across Canada with the economic stimulus budget, it was too short lived to create jobs of long-term, permanent nature. Manufacturers were still bleeding jobs across Canada, espcially in Ontario and Quebec.

Some conservative supporters want us to believe that all the jobs that were lost have since returned, but that is not what most of us on the ground are seeing. Our unemployment has not dropped that much, and for those returning to any job, usually took a substantial pay cut - from $30/hour to $10 an hour. Many more people have to take two or more jobs to survive. I know this, a dear friend of mine who worked three minimum wage jobs to support three children on her own recently took a heart attack, and is now unable to return to any of her jobs, and will now likely lose her house that she "won" in her divorce settlement. I know several others who have worked for a long period of time, such as twenty years or more, for Niagara's major manufacturers and since their layoff, have either been unemployed, or working at low wage staffing agency jobs ... most of them have lost their homes, their marriages, and in some cases, their health. I met one of them a couple weeks ago begging for loose change on King Street. I could hardly recognize him, as he looked like he never shaved for a month, and he told me he lived at Salvation Army. Four years ago, he was married and working at a local factory.

The Conservatives are coming back to us to tell us to vote for them to keep the economy stable and strong. Because Harper would only allow staunch supporters into his visits, he would hear nothing from the people I see everyday and those who I see bundled up with several bags of their possessions at Tim Horton's, who used to work and pay lots of taxes. All they want now is a break. He refused to take more than five questions a day from reporters, and this includes the full campaign day, not at each campaign stop. If he is asked about health care, Harper tries to avoid the question. He does not want to vow allegiance to the Canada Health Act, particularly has he has not once enforced the act during his five years of governance, even when clear breaches were taking place in Quebec, BC and in Alberta, with the development of private clinics that attracted medical personnel from the public system to offer quick services to those with money to pay for them, while leaving those without funds to wait even longer with even less doctors and resources to turn to. Harper's position on health care alone should concern Canadians about his true intentions under a majority.

I ask Conservatives online to tell me ONE example of when Harper's government has attempted to enforce or even warn offending provinces of their breaches of the law. These people, because they cannot name even one time, nor can they prove that Harper will not scrap medicare, try to divert the topic to how I am spreading conspiracy theories, or even worse. Well, if I am, then they might as well include the dean of business at McGill University, about half of Canada's economists, most provincial governments, as well as even some former Conservatives that I know who have talked to me about this topic. We are all spreading conspiracy theories. All I can say is once they get their coveted majority, if they manage to brainwash or scare enough Canadians into voting their way, I will then be in a position to say, "I told you so". I am so certain about this, that I am writing about it here. I have never been wrong about these types of things in the past.

They key is how health care will go. Will he openly scrap medicare, or will he just let it starve a painful death? Murray Dobbin, who sits on the board of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, does not think it would be politically correct of Harper to try to kill medicare. He believes he will just let it die, and let others kill it, after they get less and less money to pay for it. Transferring tax points instead of transfer payments is one way to nullify the Canada Health Act. This way, there would be no way for Ottawa to financially punish provinces that allow blatant violations of the health act. Under McGuinty, we have seen cuts to health care, as a direct result of decreasing transfer payments from Ottawa. Health care used to be delivered to the provinces in 50 cent dollars. Now Ontario only gets about 24 cent dollars from Ottawa, which of course forces health care to comprise more and more of the provincial budget (even though the amount of health care isn't actually increasing one iota). We have seen de-listing of many treatments, including foot care, physiotherapy, chiropractic, optometry, etc. Many drugs as well as being de-listed, or only being offered in their generic varieties.

Canadians who are well off do not notice this at all. They often have gold-plated private health plans that pay for most drugs, physiotherapy, chiropractic, foot care, private rooms, dental, etc. Well off Canadians, although not likely the very rich, are those that complain the loudest about their taxes. These are the Canadians apart from the most wealthy that can afford to pay more in taxes. Most of these people have their homes paid for, own two or three cars, have live-in housekeeping help, go on real vacations at least once or twice a year, and can afford to pay their children's college or university tuitions. Yet they complain about paying another penny in income taxes. They are part of the "me" generation. In my view, they are so concerned about themselves, people like me don't have to be concerned about them.

The Conservative platform was analyzed by analysts of various political persuasions and not a single one stated that their "tax cuts" will favour families that have a total income of less than $80,000 a year (esp with only earner), or individuals with less than $90,000 a year. The average Ontario HOUSEHOLD income is about $80,000 a year, but this $80,000is comprised by more than one income, usually two or three incomes. The type of household with a single income earner earning $90,000 or more with an at home spouse, comprises less than 5% of households. Those earning $90,000 on their own are in the top 5% income bracket. The tax break reads that the higher earner can put up to $50,000 of their own income onto the income of non-earning or lower earning spouse. Well, the average and median incomes of Ontario individuals are much lower than $50,000 - period. Most people do not even earn $50,000 without having that much to "give away" to a lower paying or non-earning spouse. Most have an earning spouse, most of which don't make much less than they do anyways, or perhaps is not making too little to benefit this way.

I did a straw poll of people downtown one day. I just talked to people in Tim Horton's, at the bus stop, by the farmer's market, and various others who were downtown on business for whatever reason. Only one person I met admitted to earning more than $50,000 a year (e.g. a lawyer friend of mine, partner in his firm). Virtually all of those who were married had a spouse that was also working. When I read out the exact proposal for this income splitting from the Conservative platform book, only one person felt they "might" benefit from it (even though on closer examination, he wasn't sure when I showed him the chart supplied by TD Economics). He thought that because both his and his wife's income approached $80,000, it might work ... but he realized that he wouldn't benefit much because he makes only $45,000 and his wife earns $32,000, which is pretty close to the national income averages.

I also reviewed the tax free savings account proposal, where people can double the amount of exempt income to keep in them. I asked how many of the people I spoke to even heard of a tax free savings account. About half of them did. Only three that I spoke to used one, or had such an account in the past year. They were nowhere near the maximum allowable even at the current rates. I ask why, and they say they are only able to save so much money. A report by TD Economics recently said more than one third of Canadians are unable to even pay for basics. This does not include the broader segment of our population that is unable to save, or put aside enough money for retirement. This is a substantial group of people that can't even pay the bills they have, and many of them are deeply in debt. This is now, in 2011 ... for those reading this that don't believe this, you are spoiled rotten, and probably part of the "me" generation - only believing you pay too many taxes, that you want to pay for a Lexus instead of a Toyota, or a cottage, instead of just a vacation. Those in the "me" generation know no hardship, and consider these above choices the hardest they've had to make. There were not a lot of people I met like this before the latest recession, but now there are many.


After 2008, I noticed a lot of anger erupting from various corners of society. At one time, Canadians valued a "we" system of politics, a system that benefited all of us, and at the very least offered equality of opportunity and freedom from discriminatory acts. People would answer in political polls their support for universal health care and a progressive system of taxes; those that earn more, should pay more, with the exception that if a business actually does create high paying jobs, perhaps some assistance should be given to help the company keep the jobs in Canada. But after 2008, those of us that were still doing very well, and I know many of these people - they are *not* getting the income from the private sector, but are often teachers, firefighters, engineers working at Ontario Power Authority, road workers, etc. - most of their money is coming from taxes. Yet these same people complain the loudest about the amount of taxes they pay. Even autoworkers who have been bailed out by the billions also complain about the taxes they pay. When I ask them how much they earn, the lowest income among those that stated an answer was $70,000 a year (e.g. a police officer). But if I ask them if we make cuts, should we make cuts to the departments they work for? Oh no, don't do that!

They want cuts to health care, because people "abuse" health care by going to the emergency wards with sniffles. That's not my experience when I speak to health care workers, but their proposal that people pay a fee to go to the emergency ward will only keep people away that have real emergencies. So, I tell them about "so why don't we cut our taxes by stripping your gold plated health benefits coverage, and have you just live by OHIP like the rest of us?" No, no! Yet they are willing to cut OHIP coverage for those of us that don't have a choice. This has all come down to a politics of "me". They do not want to see any cuts in any programs that affect their employment, or any other programs they benefit from, but have no problems cutting the funds available to those that don't have the money or access to gold-plated public service jobs or benefits like they do.

Not all public service workers are like this. I know many teachers, nurses, doctors, and even police officers that worry like hell what will happen if the safety net is cut even further. These people are educated enough that some people will find ways of getting their needs met by crime, and feel that our public services have already been cut to the bone (which I agree to). I have known people who have been unable to buy both food and rent with their social assistance cheques, and it is only getting worse, that they live on the streets, and use their basic needs pay for eating out once a day. One of these guys is in a wheelchair. I don't even want to know what he does at night, or where he sleeps. I have had clients that live in their cars, after they have lost their homes, following job loss, despite 20 - 30 years with a single employer. Governments say they listen to the people, but I don't think they do. We walk on different sides of the tracks, obviously.

Governments are trying to resolve both ends of their problems, by reducing taxes for those that are graduating into the "me" politic, and cutting services to those that need the "we" programs, which is most of us really. Since the politics of "me" started, I have known more people to go to the streets to obtain the drugs they need to deal with what they feel is ailing them. To pay for that, they become small time dealers themselves. I have seen a rapid increase in prostitution among both young males and females, usually starting under the age of 18. I have a few of them come into my office, unable to recall their histories, because the street drugs have wiped out much of the "me" in them. They can't even begin to understand the "we".

The government knows that maintaining poverty in its current state is going to cost them a lot more over time than it will even if they spent billions to make sure nobody lives in need. They know the added costs to the health care system that is caused by poverty. They know that all, other than a very few people, in prison were living in poverty before they got there. Governments know they are throwing good money after bad, by keeping the resources away from those who need them the most. By enabling charities, poverty becomes entrenched and only allows the "me" population of givers to assuage their guilt for failing to ever walk in their shoes or even begin to understand recipients of these programs actually need. Yet, those in know among the "me" generation know darn well that those that receive charity actually do get nothing, not even the hope that things will ever get better - while the "me" giver becomes a hero, and can save a little on their taxes.

Those following the growing group of "me" thinkers just think if we denied health care to those that can't pay will save us all money when they die of their illness anyways. Do not believe this thought has never crossed the mind of our own so-called democratic governments. Just because they cannot take the weak, the frail, the elderly and the disabled behind the woodshed to shoot them dead, or send them to work camps, does not mean they can do the very same thing by attrition. Even if we adopt that attitude about health care, which the U.S. already has, we will be seen as spending way more money per capita, as health care usage per capita is only at its highest when people are at death's door.

Frankly, if it was all about tax dollars, it would be much cheaper just to provide the care, and try to alleviate the causes, including tackling poverty and malnutrition. I live in a country where conditions like scurvy, rickets and TB are not just issues of the past, but they are here today, alive and well in Niagara Region (as well as other places). These are conditions usually found in the very poor, homeless and malnourished. If people had money for food, and safe housing, instead of just $10 left after they pay their housing, they might not be as sick as they are.

Personally, I don't care about the people who live in the "me" politic, simply because they care a whole lot about themselves and just themselves, so they don't really need anybody else to worry about them. If I were in politics, I would be enforcing laws against tax evasion, and making it public who the tax cheats are. I would be encouraging boycotts of companies that pay little to no income tax. If those of the "me" politics want private health care, I will tell them to make a choice: private only or public. If they choose private, they will barred from ever using public health care, even in emergencies. They should have private coverage for that, and if they don't or get turned down because they are already sick, don't turn to the public and suddenly want it both ways. The same would go for health care providers. If they choose to work in a private clinic, they will be barred from receiving any payment from public health insurance. They, too, can't have it both ways. It is only then will these "me" people will realize how much these things really cost on their own, and why these issues matter to other Canadians.

There are lawsuits brought by organizations that issue tax receipts to those that donate to them. That means somebody else (including many of us that disagree sharply with the objectives of these organizations) pays the taxes the people that donate to these organizations don't pay. These organizations are unabashedly partisan and primarily ideological. They include the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, and various think tanks like the Montreal Enterprise Institute, that believe in no government, just control by the wealthiest among us. Most espouse the removal of minimum wage, health and safety laws, and other protections for those not wealthy enough to not be concerned about these things. These organizations are paid for and run by the "me" generation of people who don't have a clue about how other Canadians live. The best I would do as a government is to remove their tax exempt status.

Fore example, the Canadian Constitutional Foundation has filed lawsuits against Ontario to force it to allow private clinics for those that can pay, meaning leave the rest of us with less resources. They stem from situations that otherwise have merit, but should instead lead to a lawsuit simply to make OHIP pay for the services that these people were forced to pay for elsewhere. However, that is not good enough - they want to take away YOUR access to health care, so these people can pay out of pocket to get instant service, while you and I will likely have to wait longer for less doctors to serve us. I have not seen any clear evidence from any peer reviewed resource that states that having a parallel private and public health system would reduce wait times for the rest of us, only for the wealthy that will get help right away. I ask people that support private health care for even ONE study, they come up empty. They don`t even answe me when I ask them if they can afford private health care. They just don`t imagine THEIR Conservative government doing that to us, but take it from those of us that are cynical. I would be frankly shocked if the Conservatives entered into a majority government and throughout their five year term, did not dismantle some aspects of public health care.

Now, for those of you who have not voted yet ... please read this to understand what our life might be like under a Stephen Harper majority. We will not have any poverty help at all, because as one of his candidates said, "Canada has eliminated poverty" (e.g. Chris Alexander in Ajax). When he did say this, he was severely heckled by many people in the crowd. Even if jobs are being created as we speak, they are more likely to be the minimum wage jobs that do not support families, than the type of jobs people held in the past that allowed us to have a middle class. In the meantime, if those who are making good money in the public sector, and you ALL know who your are, it might be a good idea to stop dissing taxes, as it is those very taxes that the rest of us are paying to keep you in your high paying jobs.

For thinking voters that still belong to the "we" generation, do what you can to prevent us from getting a Harper majority, or any majority as far as I am concerned.

AS PARLIAMENT STALLS, THE STOMACH TURNS

Something amazing happened while I was sipping my coffee at a brand new coffee shop downtown where I work. As I watched the words flicker across the screen of the silent television placed above the installed gas fireplace in the lounge, an old song by Duran Duran came on called Wild Boys. Normally, I do not connect any of this to anything, but the song was typically suited to what just happened to our country's Parliament.

Its Official Opposition developed a backbone! It appeared from what I was reading across the screen, then the next day in the newspapers, that Stephen Harper tried to pull a fast one in his Economic Statement tabled on November 27, 2008, before the House. As with everything, including non-money bills, Harper has chosen to make this one as well a confidence vote. This time, it backfired!

I presume that Harper believed the Opposition would cave as it always had under Stephane Dion over the past two years, as his party battered the media with repeated negative attack ads and daring to force the Opposition to call an election. He took it for granted that Dion and his fellow Opposition Party leaders would either back down or split their votes on this one. He got more than he bargained for that Thursday afternoon at Parliament Hill.

The Opposition had been planning to form a "coalition" of sorts, which would include the Liberals and NDP in a type of joint government arrangement with the support of the Bloc Quebecois on all confidence matters. Why this came as a shock to Prime Minister Harper is beyond me ... people can only be stepped on for so long before they fight back! I was proud of the Opposition Parties that night and I thought that for once, maybe Canadians will see a change for the better in their government.

The next few days enshrined newsworthy clips of formalization of the "coalition" government-in-waiting, as Harper began to appear more and more desperate to cling to power. No, the Opposition Parties were not going to back down this time ... they were going to return to Parliament the following Monday, December 8, 2008, and vote the Harper government down. Instead of the Governor-General dissolving Parliament and calling another unwanted election, the "coalition" can then be asked to form the new government.

This event triggered a groundswell of Canadian response all over the web, largely those opposed to the idea of the "coalition" being Harper supporters or people who simply don't have a clue about how our Parliamentary system operates. The masses of the uneducated or under-educated Canadians are typical fodder for the right-wing when they want to convince them of anything. Those in favour of the Coalition understood this was a possibility and perfectly legitimate role for the Opposition in our constitutional system.

On December 1, 2008, the "coalition" parties signed a deal and sent it in a letter to our Governor-General Michaele Jean, who was then forced to cut a cross-European trip to "come home" to deal with this "crisis" as some media pundits referred to it as. To me, there was no "crisis". It was just the Opposition showing their backbone, like they should have done ages ago to rid our political system of the arrogance, partisan bickering and dysfunctionality that has typically marked the federal government for the past several years.

Debate on Face Book reached fever pitch with Harper supporters or others with no clue as to how Parliament works, accusing the Opposition of "stealing their votes", or "partaking in a coup d'etat" without "being elected" ... both assumptions of course are not true. Even if the "coalition" did get a chance to form government, nothing happens with anybody's local representatives that they had selected on October 14, 2008. Tories are still Tories, Liberals are still Liberals, and so forth, as well the party breakdown in the House remains exactly the same as it was when this new government was sworn in.

Further, the act of "taking power" has no relevance to Parliament under a constitutional monarchy, which Canada is. First, all of the members of the "coalition" parties were just as "elected" as the members of the Conservative Party. Secondly, the governing Conservatives lost the confidence of the House. The Conservatives were unable to get enough votes besides their own to push this Economic Statement and all its related partisan tactics, to pass the House. As this was a confidence vote, all Opposition Parties have the power and the right to vote this government down.

As for whether an election gets called or a "coalition" gets appointed, this is the choice of the Governor-General, not unprecedented in Parliament (and has actually taken place in many provincial legislatures). The role of the Governor-General becomes crystal clear here. Her choice is to allow election after election after election with no promise of long-term stability in government, or she can elect to invite the "coalition" to form a government (provided they give her a business case for a stable Parliament for a reasonable period of time).

The Prime Minister knows this, but would not allow Canadians to become educated on this possibility. First, he made a publicized press conference which showed itself to millions of Canadian viewers to tell them the Opposition Parties were trying to take power despite not being elected to do so, and that nobody asked Canadians about whether they wanted this "coalition government" either. On the other hand, I ask, did anybody ask Canadians if they wanted their government to act the way the Harper government has been doing in the past few weeks?

On Thursday, December 4, 2008, Harper then crosses the street to Rideau Hall to speak to Governor-General Jean to prorogue Parliament in order to prevent that all important non-confidence vote he already postponed to December 8, 2008. She granted his wish after what some reported was a two-hour meeting. Parliament will re-open on January 27, 2008, with the expectation that a budget would be tabled in the House.

While proroguing of Parliament is also a legal move, but it was used this time for the wrong reasons. Proroguing or "rising of the House" is done usually after a legislative session has ended and a full program announced in a throne speech, for example, has been achieved. It is a way for the government to re-group and consider what its next steps might be. This time, the proroguing of Parliament was simply used to avoid the inevitable non-confidence vote faced by Harper and his government and for no other reason.

Despite the prorogue of the House, online debates continued ... many of them mirroring the behaviour of Parliamentarians at their worst in the House. If one went to the anti-coalition site, which many pro-coalition supporters have "joined" in order to "observe", those asking questions or trying to get people to think beyond the lies they've been fed or their lack of education and understanding of Parliament, respond violently with ad hominem and angry attacks on the messenger.

I was one of the people going online with them to ask them questions. In no way did I criticize or attack anybody, but just asked questions. I wanted to actually hear an argument against the "coalition" that was not based on emotion or lack of information from this side of tracks. Unfortunately, despite their large numbers, not a single person responded with any intelligent answer. That doesn't surprise me - people tend to be married to their ideological beliefs - however they were acquired.

They don't like Dion. They argue Dion was never elected to be Prime Minister. Well, neither was Stephen Harper, another fact these folks have difficulty absorbing. They "voted for" a Harper government, not a "coalition" - yet on my ballot, there was never any choice given to me as to who I wanted to lead the country, just my electoral district. After several back and forth nonsense, I left, as it is apparent to me that right-wing governments would tell people the moon is made out of green cheese if this would help keep them in power.

After the dust has blown over, so to speak, the Liberal Party of Canada, decided that Dion was a liability. Again, this is another "optic" thing, as really nobody can actually tell if Dion would make a good Prime Minister or a bad one. We already seen Stephen Harper act arrogantly, pro-partisan and Machiavellian in his role as a minority Prime Minister, so we have an idea of what kind of leader he is. One can only imagine if he actually had a majority, and I know instinctively that if he were ever to get a majority, most Canadians would be begging for a change and fast!

Almost overnight, the long-term leadership battle for the Liberal Party between Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc, was resolved by fiat of the party's executive, much to disappointment of many grassroots Liberals. Both Leblanc and Rae resigned in concert over as many days. The party's executive crowned Ignatieff the "interim leader" with this appointment only to be formalized at the already organized policy conference in May 2009.

Ignatieff seems to be somebody with a bigger backbone who probably would not back down on attacks by the Conservatives, although his lengthy absence from Canada can be deemed an issue. Some might say he dropped from the sky in 2005 to suddenly be a candidate for the Liberal leadership in their 2006 contest that eventually crowned Dion in the first place. However, many Liberals would say he proved his mettle in caucus and has developed his own strategies for forcing the Conservatives to govern in the national interest.

Almost as soon as he was placed in the leadership suite, Ignatieff brought the Liberal Party's ratings to 31%, while the Conservatives dropped to 37% of voter support. Ignatieff personally had the support of 28% of the voters as their preferred leader, while Harper had the respect of 27%. Under Dion, his ratings were 25% and 23%, respectively. Harper has not mentioned this sudden comeback of his Opposition, although he is no doubt aware that his chances of even winning a majority if an election were called today have all but disappeared. Therefore, Harper took his next step.

Remember, Parliament is prorogued. The doors are locked and Parliamentarians are not working. However, Stephen Harper, who at one time decided that Senate Reform was one of his major priorities, is suddenly taking advantage of that very institution that he hates. He decided that before Christmas, he is going to stuff the Senate with at least eighteen (18) partisans to get his party a "working majority" in the Red Chamber. Even though the Liberals and others still far outnumber Conservatives, his new appointees will likely be more active than those appointed well before.

Stuffing the Senate was an allegation that he made as the leader of the Canadian Alliance and then later as the leader of the Official Opposition when the Liberals governed. Should I publish Harper's many quotes on this subject that he stated to the House during these also very rocky periods? However, either his mind changed or something in the drinking water at the ruling side of the House has caused him to deem this is now an acceptable practice. To me, this is obvious that Harper fears still losing power, particularly now with a formidable opponent in Michael Ignatieff.

So, as time crawls by during the prorogue period ... Canadians have a wide open opportunity. The door has been opened by Michael Ignatieff, one might say. Ignatieff did say he cannot properly vote against a budget that he has not yet read, which makes sense. He has also left the ball in Harper's court to make sure that the budget is in the national interest. So, I would expect all national organizations that are concerned with cuts to the court challenges program, cuts to programs for persons with disabilities, changes to EI program, and so forth, should be FLOODING Parliament Hill with their requests for pre-budget consultations, saying if Harper doesn't do it - they will push the "coalition" to consider these proposals. Lobbying firms are probably busy right now.

Stephen Harper put his own foot in his own mouth by the Economic Statement, and by assuming the Opposition will remain lame duck and always back down, fearing obliteration by an election. Foot in mouth disease is relatively common among politicians of all political stripes. This battle cry by the Opposition is just the medicine this Parliament needed to excite Canadians, make them hope once again, for their own Obama. As Americans voted out the right-wing in droves and installed in place the first Black American as President, Canadians are looking south for this kind of hope ... to me, this is what the "coalition" did.

I am not saying I support or do not support any one or all of the Opposition leaders, but all I can say is that night in the coffee shop, I actually had some hope that something might change for Canadians, who unfortunately are still largely caught up in the myths that tax cuts, shrinking government, privatization of health care, and so forth would make their lives better. I always tell people to look south and ask the masses who voted for Obama if eight straight years of laissez-faire economics did their families any good. It should not take an economic crisis the size of that in the United States to make Canadians better understand that we can make change, and we can expect better. Why not now?