Last December, the province announced a comprehensive Social Assistance Review. This is part of the all party supported Poverty Reduction Act, passed approximately two years prior. The purpose of this review is to achieve the following objectives:
Review Objectives
The review commission will create a concrete action plan to reform Ontario's social assistance system. A reformed system will:
■help get people back to work
■be part of a larger income security system that includes municipal, provincial and federal programs
■share responsibility for improving the outcomes of low-income Ontarians with municipal and federal governments as well as the people who rely on social assistance
■be simple to understand and access, and provide people in need with basic income support in a fair and equitable way
■work well with other municipal, provincial and federal programs outside of social assistance - including education, training, housing, child care and health benefits - to support employment
■respect the autonomy, responsibility and dignity of individuals and recognize that clients are best placed to decide how to spend their money to meet their needs
■be efficient, financially sustainable and accountable to taxpayers, and
■meet its intended purpose as a system of last resort
Unfortunately, there is no stated objective to reduce poverty among those that receive, or must rely on these social programs to survive. Also, while a stated objective, the present system does more to discourage work than it does to encourage and maximize the benefits from paid work for such individuals and families.
Among my colleagues, there is as much fear and trepidation as to what this review might recommend, or result in, as there is excitement. This concern was outlined in a previous blog entry of mine. Treating persons with disabilities as part of the welfare system is the first biggest mistake of our social safety network, as this effectively prevents individuals from forming families and those with families from getting ahead financially.
As of the time of the 2006 Census, 68.6% of all families consist of two married persons, while an additional 15.5% of families in the 2006 Census were living in a common law relationship. Accoding to the Ministry of Community & Social Services, as of February 2011, 77.3% of the entire ODSP caseload consists of individual persons living alone, while an additional 8.75% are single parents with dependents under the age of eighteen years of age. This means approximately 84% of ODSP recipients are unattached, while a roughly equal number of non-recipients are attached in some way.
According to the National Council of Welfare, the greatest risk of poverty falls on to those who are unattached. When risk of poverty was selected by family type, unattached individuals, married couples and families, were compared, unattached individuals were at least five or six times as likely to live in poverty than those who were attached, or were a part of a family.
One would think logically, then why don't more ODSP recipients get married or involved in a common law union? The answer is obvious, if you are either one of the many unattached ODSP recipients, or one of the 16% of the caseload that is part of a marriage or common law union. If one member of the couple works, their income cannibalizes the recipient's income proportionately, regardless of whether the recipient has earnings of his or her own or not. The non-disabled spouse is obligated to fully support the disabled spouse to an extent that is beyond what is required by law in non-welfare situations. For example, if the disabled spouse was in receipt of worker's compensation, CPP Disability, Long-Term Disability, or any other income, even earnings, these sources of income are completely unaffected by the non-disabled person's income and assets, even though in those cases, the non-disabled person has an equal obligation under law to support their spouse. That means the working spouse goes to work, gets taxed on every dollar they make, and after that, they lose an additional 50% of their income to ODSP. In effect, they are paying more taxes than are required of millionaires!
If a spouse wants to bring their family out of poverty, they must either work in a job that pays them at least $70,000 or $80,000 a year, with benefits, or work the equivalent of 2.5 jobs to keep their family OFF benefits. Conversely, the person with the disability loses more and more of their independence the more money their spouse earns. This is setting people up for some pretty horrible situations: Many times, spouses do not feel obligated to report their income to ODSP, and thus will not disclose their income to their disabled spouses and thus will not declare their income, getting the disabled person in trouble with ODSP. Henceforth, this type of intrusion in the family unit results in a large number of break-ups. In virtually all of the break-ups I have seen for this reason, resulted in ODSP forcing the non-disabled spouse, now separated from them, to pay support - even if they have to sue. Now the non-disabled spouse does not only have to support themselves, they now have to support a second household, while the disabled person does not net a single penny more than they would if they were on ODSP alone.
When this issue is raised in some parts of the community, some common retorts come back about why should well-paid lawyers or teachers or business people be able to keep all of their income if they marry somebody on ODSP? The answer is simple. These people get to keep all of their income if their spouse is working, is on WSIB, is on CPP, is on LTD, or whatever else, apart from ODSP. The tax system takes care of any alleged inequities. If they split up with their ODSP recipient partner, they would still have to pay support as they always would have, regardless of the lower income spouse's source of income. Under the current law, working spouses are required to do more than their obligation under family law, and suffer greater penalties if the relationship does not work. That is why there are so very few people married or living common law that receive ODSP. Thus, their opportunity to escape poverty by marrying somebody is closed to them.
Self-employment is often an option for persons with disabilities that cannot fit in the regular workplace. Many people who start their own businesses carry on and become quite well off, as a result of their own efforts and subsequently, the business supports them. Unfortunately, for those in receipt of ODSP, the rules prohibit any moves that can help get a recipient out of poverty. The self-employment directive, or Directive 5.4, has been set up to keep a recipient and/or their family in poverty and relying on ODSP in perpetuity. Less than 2% of those on ODSP are receiving self-employment income (reports from Ministry sources). Many people who were self-employed have stopped working in their businesses, once the barriers put into place by ODSP are discovered and affect them.
First, the self-employed person cannot hire anybody to assist them. The person is supposed to be the sales person, the accounts recievable, accounts payable, receptionist, researcher, delivery person, service provider, etc. For businesses beyond being a dog walker, babysitter, crafts person, or writer, the business is going to need to grow to accommodate increased business and service demand. A business owner can't tell its customers that "No I can't serve you because if I do, I will need to hire somebody else to help me and I am not allowed to, so I have to keep my business small and non-profitable". First, a business person would be stupid to admit this, as customers would not patronize a business that is known to be operated by somebody with a disability ... due to stigma. Second, this business is not permitted to write off expenses to attend networking sessions with peers, or to purchase career related clothing to help present a positive and business like image to their customers.
If the business person is any good, the customer base WILL grow, and it is beneficial to ODSP for it to do so, as over time, the earnings will increase and in many cases, eventually take the person and/or their family off ODSP. By sticking to the original directive, the person ends up working very long hours every day, often risking exhaustion and then possibly compromising product or service quality as a result of not having paid help to take care of the administrative matters. In a decent business, the telephone might ring twenty to twenty-five times a day. There may be as many as thirty to forty e-mails. Somebody needs to respond to them, or the customers calling or emailing will be upset. However, responding to the calls or the email does not result in billable time, so the time spent doing these items takes away from time that is paid.
ODSP's objection is they don't want taxpayers to subsidize a business. This objection is moot given multi-billion dollar handouts to corporations each year, as well as regularly FUNDED programs for consumer/survivor initiatives, as well as a number of other "community economic development initiatives". Any employee funded under a business operated by an ODSP recipient would be paid for from the business' earnings, unlike the consumer/survivor businesses, such as those run or started by groups like OCAB, or Ontario Council of Alternative Businesses. While this is not an objection to these types of organizations, the government needs to be consistent with its policy applications and objections. If they do not want to let ODSP recipients that operate private businesses hire employees, then stop handing out money to banks, insurance companies, automakers, etc. and discontinue funding for all alternative businesses.
Because the above actions are not going to stop for various policy-based reasons, then the rule against hiring employees must cease.
With this policy in place, we are forcing vulnerable persons to work very long hours, completing all tasks associated with the operations of a business, and replete with limitations imposed on them by their disability. They are expected to be superhuman. Even people without disabilities that operate a business have their limits, and will definitely seek to hire a helper at some point when their business starts to grow. Instead of deducting the money paid out as 100% and thus, risking the family's base income, ODSP should connect these self-employed persons to business consultants to help ensure they hire the right kind of help, obtain the best marketing assistance, and so forth to ensure the business works well. Income that goes to the owner is still declared, but all income going to other workers, or to other purchases should be exempt as it would under Canada Revenue Agency rules.
A further complication of this issue is when one starts or is involved with a business subject to special regulations, such as the Health Profession Regulations Board, the Teacher's College, the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, or the Law Society of Upper Canada, there are other regulations imposed on the business in order for it to keep running, such as continuing education regulations, conference attendances, technological training workshops, and so forth, that ODSP also fails to exempt. The directive only allows conferences where income is being earned. These workshops are necessary to meet the conditions of one's license. At the present time, I know of a few contractors, tradesmen, a registered nurse that practices naturpathic medicine, a self-employed counsellor, a couple of lawyers, and a trades writer, all of whom are considering quitting working altogether because of the ODSP rules restricting their businesses. ODSP needs to ask itself if it is better to keep them working, or to have them sit at home and continue to collect ODSP in perpetuity.
One of my contractor clients has been unable to break the barrier because of this, as in order to be considered credible and able to bid on large contracts, he needs to have paid help. He can't make an adequate living on "Joe jobs" like painting window sills, and installing the odd set of blinds. He needs to be able to access and utilize the labour of other workers in order to even take on larger residential jobs. Another client wants to set up a limousine company, but will run into significant difficulties if he is unable to acquire more than one vehicle for his business and to hire somebody else to do the work, when he needs a break, or wants to grow his business beyond small jobs. In particular, these regulations also apply to the non-disabled spouses of ODSP recipients. Why? What purpose does this serve? How do these regulations help the self-employed recipients or spouses of recipients earn more money, grow their businesses (thus make them a more secure source of income over time), or improve their working conditions?
Some recipients live in subsidized housing, and for these people, it is impossible to start or become involved in self-employment anyways, due to regulations in subsidized housing that irrationally prohibit this. Again, over 70% of businesses that operate outside the home (e.g. operate in a commercial office or industrial space) started in the home or in a garage. Without the chance to start, these would be entrepreneurs are not going to be working, thus setting a further precedent in terms of time spent in subsidized housing and thus increasing the wait list for others waiting to move in. For these recipients even working is severely curtailed. In a report, our own John Stapleton reported on the insanity of these regulations governing earned income and subsidized housing, when it crosses over from income from social assistance. In this case, the recipient was in supportive housing, and as she worked more, her rent went up by a ridiculous amount. She soon fell into arrears, and the only way she was able to budget was to quit her job, and stay on ODSP only. How does that help people return to the workforce?
Another issue is savings. Even if somebody on ODSP was miraculously able to work and put away some money, they are limited to a total of $5,000 in "liquid assets", meaning that if they do not qualify for the generous provisions of the Registered Disability Savings Plan, only issued to those with very severe and visible disabilities, they will retire poor. They will rely only on government provisions for retirement, and given that most of these people live alone, they will definitely be living below the Statistics Canada poverty line. A non-disabled spouse has to drain ALL of their retirement savings in order for their disabled spouse to qualify for ODSP, and after that, cannot replenish this fund, no matter how hard they work. What good does this do? How does this help the economy? This is yet another reason why ODSP recipients cannot get into relationships.
A final issue is earnings themselves. The government was good to increase the amount of money one can keep from working by increasing the percentage of earned income one can keep, and adding a $100 work benefit to offset the small percentage of workers that would lose out on the 50% proposal alone. However, this new policy does not exempt any income. The fifty percent starts from the very first dollar earned, until the person earns enough to migrate off ODSP. For many people who accept minimum wage employment, for example, they feel they are losing, as they are bringing in what they see as less than minimum wage for every hour they work. One Conservative MPP recognized this issue, and attempted to push for an exempted earnings bracket of $500 per individual, and if that person is married, $700 (although as a Coalition, we proposed $1,000 if they still keep the benefit unit). This money would be exempt from any deductions until after they earn more than that amount, then the 50% deduction will kick in.
The province will bitch and complain about the size of their deficit. Don't let them do this, or white wash this deliberate ploy to keep people with disabilities under their thumbs. As long as they keep pouring money into tax cuts for businesses, regardless of whether they hire anybody or not, or worse yet - handing out money like they did with the auto sector, or paying for frills like eHealth, the OLG, multi-million dollar consultants, and so forth, there are NO excuses. Their existing policies and directives keep people in poverty, regardless of how hard they work, or how they try to organize their financial affairs. Normal exits from poverty such as a job or business, or moving in with a spouse, are not available to this population like it is for other people.
Yet the government has a policy on its books that ODSP recipients and beneficiaries can recieve up to $6,000 a year in gifts from "family and friends". There is a lot wrong with this. It is presumptuous: it assumes that all recipients have family members that are only itching to pour their hard-earned monies into the accounts of their loved ones on ODSP. In my experience working with ODSP recipients, I can count the number of recipients that have family that is that supportive on my left hand. Most recipients that have family at all cannot benefit from this, as their own families are also on ODSP (e.g. genetic disabilities), too old or frail themselves, or dead. Others are too far away. A few have families that have completely written them out of their lives, and fail to contact them, let alone provide "gifts". Why can't an ODSP recipient who is able and willing to earn make up this $500 per month for themselves, particularly if they are unable to access any "gifts" from family and friends?
Further, this whole "gifts" policy treats persons with disabilities as some type of charity case. Many do not want to be considered a charity case. When people come into my office to appeal their ODSP benefits, most are tearful, upset and ashamed of being required to ask for these benefits in the first place. Must we punish them some more to make them look like society's Timmy and Tammy? This is not a request to remove this provision, but to equalize earnings, or perhaps make earnings even more exempt because of the cost of obtaining these earnings. As far as I am concerned, a non-disabled spouse should be exempt - period, or at worst, exempt in terms of $500 per month per member of the benefit unit, including themselves, if they are going to be kept as part of the benefit unit ... at least that way, they are providing a "gift" from family of sorts, that should be equivalent to a gift from say, one's parents or siblings. Why is a "gift" from a parent or sibling exempt, but not exempt if it comes from a working spouse? The inconsistencies and ideologies that mount these policies are not only confusing, but unfair for many groups.
The final issue is definition of disability. This is one of the concerns that has led to rifts within the legal community about these programs. Ontario does have a fairly generous program compared to other programs in other provinces. A disability program should not require one to be "permanently unemployable" or "severely disabled", but must present proof that they have a verifiable disability that leads to substantial restrictions in a number of areas, such as working, caring for oneself, engaging in relationships, interacting in the community, etc. but not all of them. The existing definition works fine, with some cases to be reviewed in a set period of time, if it appears the disability is of a time limited nature. Others are long term, and should be subject to rapid reinstatement if a job does not work out. Restricting the definition of disability only results in more long term cases on Ontario Works, or people cycling in and out of Ontario Works without ever getting permanently back into the labour force. I know many people who are on OW for years at a time, simply because they lack a family doctor to assist them with their ODSP application, or they have unrecognized barriers. For example, an inability to drive, in itself, as long as the reason for it is medical, should be deemed a substantial restriction that should qualify one for disability benefits.
People who consider themselves fiscal conservatives will consider the cost of these proposals, and scream. However, the cost of NOT doing these things will keep people on ODSP for life, and the numbers of those with earnings will continue to remain very low. Indirectly, medical costs associated with depression, poverty, isolation and social exclusion will more than make up for what has been "saved" by keeping them on this punitive system.
Your thoughts?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
PROTESTING FOR A BETTER LIFE
We take it for granted that we believe in a democracy.
Perhaps, we take it for granted that we do not live in a police state, where every action of ours is watched and punished when it moves against the state's ideology. Over the past year though, I begin to question that assumption as well.
But are taking all of this so much for granted that we do not see our democracy and freedoms diminish before our eyes? All around us, people in other countries, both democratic and autocratic are taking up arms against their states.
The power of the people at this stage will one day be written into our history books and be representative of change in our world history. I watched proudly as the people of Egypt took up peacefully against their own government dictatorship of 41 years demanding none other than Mubarek's resignation and a state where people worked, participated and moved freely within.
People around the world watched as Mubarek publicly resigned, left his office in Cairo and turned over power to the military that is now setting up a constitutional commission and is attempting to develop a new way of electing its leaders.
In Greece, people protested the new austerity crisis, where government is reacting to cut more and more and gut what represents to its people of its democratic and social institutions, as more and more Greeks live in poverty and can't find jobs. This angst has spread to Europe, where France has once again faced its own people pushing to moderate the austerity agenda and restore certain worker's rights.
In Ireland, where North American leaders have pointed to where corporate tax cuts have "worked", unemployment has recently hit a crisis point whereby many Irish companies are closing after being in business for generations. The concentration of wealth has never been so horrid worldwide as it is today, a mere repeat and exacerbation of our life just before the Great Depression.
In Great Britain, the new Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition led by David Cameron, promises to make deep cuts to almost everything that walks. Benefits for the poor have been decimated, health care for the elderly and persons with disabilities tightened up and housing councils are being sold to private interests. Voters seem to vote for leaders without agendas, without plans, other than to cut what is there, but not to hurt "the job creators" - or big business, despite the fact less and less jobs are actually being created.
This movement should concern us, and perhaps we should pick up pickets and do the same here. At the present time in the state of Wisconsin, newly elected Governor Scott Walker and his Republican dominated House have decided to press ahead by moving the clock backwards on worker's rights and even the right to collectively bargain as a union. One might think, "I'm not in a union, so this does not affect me", but this is only its most visible target. Health care and social benefits to the elderly and persons with disabilities have also been slashed.
What happens when a state gets this way? To me, this is not nation-bulding, and I would NEVER support any political party or leader that seems to go on this track. A governance plan of cuts and more cuts, means no nation building at all, no cohesion and no respect for the people that paid into developing it. These types of cuts invariably always wind up costing the public more money out of pocket for services we used to get for "free" or low cost, and in general - we tend to pay more out of pocket for these things than we get back in any reductions in taxes paid.
Taxes pay for civil society. Cutting the services that taxes pay for reduce this civility to much of what our society is becoming - rich against the poor, blacks against the whites, Christians against the Muslims, etc. The "other" groups become the ones responsible for the circumstances we find ourselves in. News outlets and call-in talk shows come out with allegations that people receiving income assistance from the state are pushing the whole nation into debt, when there is scant evidence to back any of this up.
A new poll that was published in Saturday's paper by Angus Reid indicated that the federal "Conservatives" hold a 13-point lead over its rival Liberals. When broken down by education, those with less education tend to support the "Conservatives", while those with more education tend to vote Liberal and somewhat NDP. Males tend to be more "Conservative" than females in all education groups and regions. I put quotes around the word "Conservative" because Stephen Harper's party is NOT the party of John A. McDonald or John Diefenbaker. It is an amalgam of Republican wannabes from Alberta, Preston Manning's Reform Party and Stockwell Day's attempt at pushing for an "Alliance" between the federal parties of the right. The former Progressive Conservative Party died the day Peter McKay agreed to the merger.
Canadians that support the "Conservatives" have no clue that the old Progressive Conservatives, even under the likes of Brian Mulroney, no longer exist. The party is now the party of the "slash and burn" variety, whereby Canada's historical ties to human rights abroad and within has diminished, its commitment to equality and ending poverty non-existent ... corporations will take care of us, if we only cut their taxes down to zero. Let the CEOs decide what social programs we need, they want to say. Stephen Harper said himself as the policy spokesperson for the Reform Party that Canadians would not recognize Canada once they would be done with it.
Canadians are either wilfully blind or are swallowing the hype from the increasingly Fox News like media in our own country that makes the Conservatives seem as moderate as their former counterparts. Yet, Canadians, when asked the right questions would understand why a majority government of this type might not be good for the majority of us. Most of us cannot afford to cover more of our health costs out of pocket, or pay into private health insurance for basics. We might have some problems with the idea of charter schools (where many of them are funded by private corporations), whereby wealthier families would be hands down able to provide a good education for their kids, while poorer kids will attend schools with diminishing and non-existent resources.
Yes, these things are provincial and Harper is federal. However, Harper has control over the purse strings, and can make decisions such as the "trial balloon" that he mysteriously allowed one of his favoured Cabinet Ministers to float over us this past fall to cut over $50 billion in transfer payments to the provinces and let the provinces have full autonomy over their own issues. (Normally, Harper is not fond of letting any of his Ministers speak out of turn, so this "trial balloon" seems to have been strategic). Then, with a fellow tax cutter like Tim Hudak, possibly forming the next provincial government in Ontario, it does not look good for Ontario.
I worked and made very good money by mid-1990's standards when Mike Harris was in government. Mike Harris cut our provincial portion of taxes by 30%, and basically to be honest, I did not spend more money in the community. I just paid down debts and put into investments like RRSPs and so forth. This is the same thing that 99.9% of other well off taxpayers did. Very little of this influenced job creation.
At the same time, the community around us became a war zone. People on welfare lost their homes, frequently moving from one place to the next, and children changing schools multiple times per year. I counted over a dozen suicides that were directly connected to Harris' cuts in his first year alone in my community. As I changed careers and moved on into my current legal practice, I still note a large number of my families undergoing foreclosure, people losing their teeth to various health conditions and not being assisted with dentures, social housing falling apart, gun shots in my neighbourhood, a substantial percentage of young people hooked on crack cocaine and working the streets, and people stopping us asking for loose change.
More and more of my clients are being screened for jail terms for non-violent offences, all in the name of public deterrance. I fail to see how a jail sentence is going to help many of these people, except keep them out of the legitimate labour force for a few years until we can secure a pardon for them. Of course, people don't want to go to jail, but the whole punitive thinking has been proven by peer-reviewed research to be ineffective in stopping crime, or even rehabilitating offenders. Harper is building more federal facilities to store people in, until they are released and have no choice but to commit another crime, when they find nobody will hire them, their families have disappeared and they have no money to rent or lease an apartment.
Cutting the taxes paid by businesses or by wealthy citizens is not going to create jobs. Jobs are created because a company needs a worker to do a certain job, not because it pays less taxes. It is the very nature of business to try to cut corners by hiring fewer people if it can get away with it to produce more. Businesses are not accountable to our government or to its employees, but only to its shareholders. If a corporation can show it can cut costs and reap a major profit, then the CEO gets a huge bonus, and the shareholders walk away with bigger dividends.
Tax cuts do not spur spending by these businesses, particularly on jobs or increasing the salaries of workers they already have. If you work at Wal-Mart, know that the corporate taxes they have been paying have been sloping downward for the past decade or more, but have your wages gone up any? I thought so. There is only a certain amount of spending that better off people will do; it quickly declines at its maximum marginal value. Businesses, as with families, only spend up to the point of its maximum marginal output. You will not purchase more gas, more groceries, more clothes, etc. than what you and your family need, even if you had a ton of disposable income left over after these necessary items are purchased. Once this slope is crossed, the future is considered and that is where investments and other non-economic drivers come in, e.g. retirement planning, paying off debt.
A better approach is not to bail out the banks, the automakers and other companies that probably caused themselves to go insolvent, but to provide assistance to those at the lower end to either obtain better jobs (e.g. infrastructure investments), increased income supports (e.g. employment insurance, social programs, pensions), and reducing or eliminating punitive rules in social programs that prevent incentive. If I were unfortunate enough to rely on social assistance, and was only able to purchase a roof over my head, the only "stimulation" I am providing is to my landlord, and not to the grocery store, the bookstore, the movie theatre, the Swiss Chalet, ther neighbourhood bar, etc. because I have no more money to spend at these other places ... the consequences of not eating well are well known, and I suppose it creates more jobs for the doctors and hospitals and pharmaceuticals, but given that much of this is publicly funded ... this is why health care is eating up more and more of our budget.
All I know is there might be a federal election around the corner, and I hear so many people tell me they trust Harper with the country's future. I don't. I have seen what he has done to the Senate, with the census, with political financing, with corporate tax cuts (while increasing some taxes on lower and middle incomes), increasing spending by the billions on fighter jets, planning G20's in the midst of Toronto and then falsely arresting over 1,000 people in it, etc.
I would be willing to hear what good Harper has done, but that is so miniscule compared to the harm. This is not a government that is based on a plan, a strategy, with the interests of all Canadians but instead it is a government of ideology. If Harper got a majority in the next election, I would love to be the one that does the polling, except this time I will ask the correct questions, and I am sure people will be very sorry they have voted this majority in.
Who to vote for? I think this is part of why some are moving to Harper, because the Liberal leader does not present well, and the NDP does curry favour with the public, as they do have ideology of their own. What we need is a better voting system, one that allows us to vote for a candidate of our choice, separate from the leader or the party of our choice. One can still vote for a local Conservative candidate, as there are many smart men and women in this party that are running, just like in any other party, but vote for a different leadership.
Unfortunately, none of the big parties will go for it, as they see this as eroding their base, and preventing majorities. My question would be then: What is the benefit to our country of majority governments that run roughshod over the rights of all Canadians, do whatever they like, regardless of what they campaigned on, and then destroy the country or province, and then leave a huge deficit for the next government?
I tend to prefer minority governments myself, with the power and movement for coalitions, both temporary and long-term, depending on the issues. That is how many western European countries operate, but why not ours?
Your thoughts?
Perhaps, we take it for granted that we do not live in a police state, where every action of ours is watched and punished when it moves against the state's ideology. Over the past year though, I begin to question that assumption as well.
But are taking all of this so much for granted that we do not see our democracy and freedoms diminish before our eyes? All around us, people in other countries, both democratic and autocratic are taking up arms against their states.
The power of the people at this stage will one day be written into our history books and be representative of change in our world history. I watched proudly as the people of Egypt took up peacefully against their own government dictatorship of 41 years demanding none other than Mubarek's resignation and a state where people worked, participated and moved freely within.
People around the world watched as Mubarek publicly resigned, left his office in Cairo and turned over power to the military that is now setting up a constitutional commission and is attempting to develop a new way of electing its leaders.
In Greece, people protested the new austerity crisis, where government is reacting to cut more and more and gut what represents to its people of its democratic and social institutions, as more and more Greeks live in poverty and can't find jobs. This angst has spread to Europe, where France has once again faced its own people pushing to moderate the austerity agenda and restore certain worker's rights.
In Ireland, where North American leaders have pointed to where corporate tax cuts have "worked", unemployment has recently hit a crisis point whereby many Irish companies are closing after being in business for generations. The concentration of wealth has never been so horrid worldwide as it is today, a mere repeat and exacerbation of our life just before the Great Depression.
In Great Britain, the new Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition led by David Cameron, promises to make deep cuts to almost everything that walks. Benefits for the poor have been decimated, health care for the elderly and persons with disabilities tightened up and housing councils are being sold to private interests. Voters seem to vote for leaders without agendas, without plans, other than to cut what is there, but not to hurt "the job creators" - or big business, despite the fact less and less jobs are actually being created.
This movement should concern us, and perhaps we should pick up pickets and do the same here. At the present time in the state of Wisconsin, newly elected Governor Scott Walker and his Republican dominated House have decided to press ahead by moving the clock backwards on worker's rights and even the right to collectively bargain as a union. One might think, "I'm not in a union, so this does not affect me", but this is only its most visible target. Health care and social benefits to the elderly and persons with disabilities have also been slashed.
What happens when a state gets this way? To me, this is not nation-bulding, and I would NEVER support any political party or leader that seems to go on this track. A governance plan of cuts and more cuts, means no nation building at all, no cohesion and no respect for the people that paid into developing it. These types of cuts invariably always wind up costing the public more money out of pocket for services we used to get for "free" or low cost, and in general - we tend to pay more out of pocket for these things than we get back in any reductions in taxes paid.
Taxes pay for civil society. Cutting the services that taxes pay for reduce this civility to much of what our society is becoming - rich against the poor, blacks against the whites, Christians against the Muslims, etc. The "other" groups become the ones responsible for the circumstances we find ourselves in. News outlets and call-in talk shows come out with allegations that people receiving income assistance from the state are pushing the whole nation into debt, when there is scant evidence to back any of this up.
A new poll that was published in Saturday's paper by Angus Reid indicated that the federal "Conservatives" hold a 13-point lead over its rival Liberals. When broken down by education, those with less education tend to support the "Conservatives", while those with more education tend to vote Liberal and somewhat NDP. Males tend to be more "Conservative" than females in all education groups and regions. I put quotes around the word "Conservative" because Stephen Harper's party is NOT the party of John A. McDonald or John Diefenbaker. It is an amalgam of Republican wannabes from Alberta, Preston Manning's Reform Party and Stockwell Day's attempt at pushing for an "Alliance" between the federal parties of the right. The former Progressive Conservative Party died the day Peter McKay agreed to the merger.
Canadians that support the "Conservatives" have no clue that the old Progressive Conservatives, even under the likes of Brian Mulroney, no longer exist. The party is now the party of the "slash and burn" variety, whereby Canada's historical ties to human rights abroad and within has diminished, its commitment to equality and ending poverty non-existent ... corporations will take care of us, if we only cut their taxes down to zero. Let the CEOs decide what social programs we need, they want to say. Stephen Harper said himself as the policy spokesperson for the Reform Party that Canadians would not recognize Canada once they would be done with it.
Canadians are either wilfully blind or are swallowing the hype from the increasingly Fox News like media in our own country that makes the Conservatives seem as moderate as their former counterparts. Yet, Canadians, when asked the right questions would understand why a majority government of this type might not be good for the majority of us. Most of us cannot afford to cover more of our health costs out of pocket, or pay into private health insurance for basics. We might have some problems with the idea of charter schools (where many of them are funded by private corporations), whereby wealthier families would be hands down able to provide a good education for their kids, while poorer kids will attend schools with diminishing and non-existent resources.
Yes, these things are provincial and Harper is federal. However, Harper has control over the purse strings, and can make decisions such as the "trial balloon" that he mysteriously allowed one of his favoured Cabinet Ministers to float over us this past fall to cut over $50 billion in transfer payments to the provinces and let the provinces have full autonomy over their own issues. (Normally, Harper is not fond of letting any of his Ministers speak out of turn, so this "trial balloon" seems to have been strategic). Then, with a fellow tax cutter like Tim Hudak, possibly forming the next provincial government in Ontario, it does not look good for Ontario.
I worked and made very good money by mid-1990's standards when Mike Harris was in government. Mike Harris cut our provincial portion of taxes by 30%, and basically to be honest, I did not spend more money in the community. I just paid down debts and put into investments like RRSPs and so forth. This is the same thing that 99.9% of other well off taxpayers did. Very little of this influenced job creation.
At the same time, the community around us became a war zone. People on welfare lost their homes, frequently moving from one place to the next, and children changing schools multiple times per year. I counted over a dozen suicides that were directly connected to Harris' cuts in his first year alone in my community. As I changed careers and moved on into my current legal practice, I still note a large number of my families undergoing foreclosure, people losing their teeth to various health conditions and not being assisted with dentures, social housing falling apart, gun shots in my neighbourhood, a substantial percentage of young people hooked on crack cocaine and working the streets, and people stopping us asking for loose change.
More and more of my clients are being screened for jail terms for non-violent offences, all in the name of public deterrance. I fail to see how a jail sentence is going to help many of these people, except keep them out of the legitimate labour force for a few years until we can secure a pardon for them. Of course, people don't want to go to jail, but the whole punitive thinking has been proven by peer-reviewed research to be ineffective in stopping crime, or even rehabilitating offenders. Harper is building more federal facilities to store people in, until they are released and have no choice but to commit another crime, when they find nobody will hire them, their families have disappeared and they have no money to rent or lease an apartment.
Cutting the taxes paid by businesses or by wealthy citizens is not going to create jobs. Jobs are created because a company needs a worker to do a certain job, not because it pays less taxes. It is the very nature of business to try to cut corners by hiring fewer people if it can get away with it to produce more. Businesses are not accountable to our government or to its employees, but only to its shareholders. If a corporation can show it can cut costs and reap a major profit, then the CEO gets a huge bonus, and the shareholders walk away with bigger dividends.
Tax cuts do not spur spending by these businesses, particularly on jobs or increasing the salaries of workers they already have. If you work at Wal-Mart, know that the corporate taxes they have been paying have been sloping downward for the past decade or more, but have your wages gone up any? I thought so. There is only a certain amount of spending that better off people will do; it quickly declines at its maximum marginal value. Businesses, as with families, only spend up to the point of its maximum marginal output. You will not purchase more gas, more groceries, more clothes, etc. than what you and your family need, even if you had a ton of disposable income left over after these necessary items are purchased. Once this slope is crossed, the future is considered and that is where investments and other non-economic drivers come in, e.g. retirement planning, paying off debt.
A better approach is not to bail out the banks, the automakers and other companies that probably caused themselves to go insolvent, but to provide assistance to those at the lower end to either obtain better jobs (e.g. infrastructure investments), increased income supports (e.g. employment insurance, social programs, pensions), and reducing or eliminating punitive rules in social programs that prevent incentive. If I were unfortunate enough to rely on social assistance, and was only able to purchase a roof over my head, the only "stimulation" I am providing is to my landlord, and not to the grocery store, the bookstore, the movie theatre, the Swiss Chalet, ther neighbourhood bar, etc. because I have no more money to spend at these other places ... the consequences of not eating well are well known, and I suppose it creates more jobs for the doctors and hospitals and pharmaceuticals, but given that much of this is publicly funded ... this is why health care is eating up more and more of our budget.
All I know is there might be a federal election around the corner, and I hear so many people tell me they trust Harper with the country's future. I don't. I have seen what he has done to the Senate, with the census, with political financing, with corporate tax cuts (while increasing some taxes on lower and middle incomes), increasing spending by the billions on fighter jets, planning G20's in the midst of Toronto and then falsely arresting over 1,000 people in it, etc.
I would be willing to hear what good Harper has done, but that is so miniscule compared to the harm. This is not a government that is based on a plan, a strategy, with the interests of all Canadians but instead it is a government of ideology. If Harper got a majority in the next election, I would love to be the one that does the polling, except this time I will ask the correct questions, and I am sure people will be very sorry they have voted this majority in.
Who to vote for? I think this is part of why some are moving to Harper, because the Liberal leader does not present well, and the NDP does curry favour with the public, as they do have ideology of their own. What we need is a better voting system, one that allows us to vote for a candidate of our choice, separate from the leader or the party of our choice. One can still vote for a local Conservative candidate, as there are many smart men and women in this party that are running, just like in any other party, but vote for a different leadership.
Unfortunately, none of the big parties will go for it, as they see this as eroding their base, and preventing majorities. My question would be then: What is the benefit to our country of majority governments that run roughshod over the rights of all Canadians, do whatever they like, regardless of what they campaigned on, and then destroy the country or province, and then leave a huge deficit for the next government?
I tend to prefer minority governments myself, with the power and movement for coalitions, both temporary and long-term, depending on the issues. That is how many western European countries operate, but why not ours?
Your thoughts?
Sunday, January 30, 2011
THE TALE OF TWO NIAGARAS AND THE DSBN ACADEMY
There has been a recent announcement by the District School Board of Niagara about their plans to create a "DSBN Academy" aimed at educating students from low income families, and to encourage more of them to move on to college or university. This announcement came out of the air. It was not campaigned about in the recent municipal election, nor was there a period of public meetings or consultations on the topic. Again, this was yet another idea from some Sunshine Club member deciding what was "best" for low income families, especially with nary an organization that speaks for low income families in Niagara -- despite the region having the second highest rate of unemployment in Canada.
The response to this issues was predictable, according to the Board chair, but they are pushing ahead with it anyways. They have several "partners" on board, such as the YMCA, Community Care, Brock University and Niagara College. The post-secondary institutions may soon host this "school", but even that is not guaranteed. Community Care is on board, of course, so they have a permanent place for their "poor" clients, as opposed to making an effort to get people out of poverty to begin with so they wouldn't need segregated schools of this type in the first place. The YMCA also offers employment programs.
My first question was, "Did they ask a single low income family if they wanted a program like this?" Of course not. I did. Not a single one of those that I asked will enroll their children in this school. In the regular mainstream school system, there are thousands of low income children in attendance, and some schools are better than others at addressing the problem. The schools that do the worst job of it expect the parents or the students to identify themselves as "in need", and then be given "charity". Because only a small minority of such families in this position come forward this way, the number of low income families is grossly underestimated. Moreover, most of the low income families I know do not even go to food banks or other agencies for help, because of the shame and ridicule they feel they will get in response to their request for help.
Even on Face Book and on the public section of websites for the newspapers themselves that published the story about the new school, it is opposed at least 5:1 by the public, many of whom are also low income themselves. I know for the period of time in my youth when I was from a low income situation, I was not eager for others to know about my situation, so I kept a lot of my feelings and experiences to myself. I would not ever consider asking the school or anybody outside for help, nor did any of my friends that found themselves in similar situations. There is no evidence to suggest any of this has changed, where children are coming to school without boots, saying they "forgot", the same with their lunches ... easier to forget than to admit there are no boots or lunches to be found. I am also aware of at least two families with kids that say they are "allergic" to pizza on pizza days, or simply don't feel like going on that camping trip.
The school board tries to tell parents to come forward with their situation and ask for help, but in my experience through working with these families, this often came with other strings attached, such as Children's Aid getting called, teachers expecting less of the students in these circumstances, or unnecessary referrals to "diagnose" the child with some type of ADHD or other mental illness de jour. Parents know these risks. They hear it happening to others in their housing complex, or to their friends and neighbours, and then they do not want to dare. It is less costly to do without than to put onself in the spotlight of being amongst the "unwashed, unclean and generally less valued" of our society. I have heard many earfuls given to me, even when I suggest a trip to community care, emergency welfare assistance, etc. I can only imagine the horror that would be felt by their kids who would not only have to self-identify to their teachers, etc. of their situation, but to their neighbours, etc. when they see them bussed off to the "poor kids' school".
The other issue with this school is that students not eligible for enrollment if either parent is college or university educated. This continues to feed on the stereotype that people are poor because they are not educated and lack skills. I have come across many well-educated low income persons, many of whom do not even readily admit being low income because of this stereotype that also blames them for whatever it was that did not lead their status to rise with their education. Many live at home with their parents, attempting to stay off the welfare rolls. Others attempt to continue their schooling, at least on a part-time basis. Others are working in low wage, low skill jobs that don't even require any education to do, as they have been screened out of better paid work for various reasons.
The other requirement is that parents have to put in 15 hours a month in volunteer time for the new school. Again, there is a broad assumption that even though they are bussing the kids in from all over Niagara, that the parents in question have their own means of transportation to do this volunteer work. Niagara always had a belief that everybody living in the region can drive and has access to a personal vehicle, and if they don't for whatever reason, it is because the person is a drunk, a drug addict or did something criminal to "deserve" having lost their license. Most non-drivers in Niagara do not fit that description at all, yet they are ridiculed, blamed, attacked and belittled, and left out of most opportunities that Niagara's employers reserve only for drivers. The one study that I am aware of is that among adults that use employment assistance services in Niagara, 93% of them do not have both a driver's license and a car.
While their education would be streamed to college or university attendance, and these students would be guaranteed summer jobs, it would also seem to me that the resources, limited as they may be, will only be taken out of the maintstream schools where the vast majority of low income students will continue to attend. For those remaining students, or those that apply and do not get into the Academy for whatever reason, will only continue to remain close-mouthed about their circumstances and try to survive the mainstream school system that will only be more hostile to them, as there will even be less resources to go around.
To me, more work needs to be done to get the PARENTS out of poverty, as opposed to trying to stop what some call a "cycle of poverty". The cycle needs to stop at the children's parents, not at the children themselves. If a parent has financial resources, then there will be less of a need for a "poor kids' school" in Niagara. While politicians continue to pretend the recession is over for people in this region, as well as most of Canada, they ignore the fact that there has been little job recovery. I am still talking to adults that don't even care if they work minimum wage, etc., who are having major trouble even finding part-time minimum wage work at a Tim Horton's. If there was a job recovery, there would be nobody like this.
The problem that people do not see is that I understand people's lives from an ethnocultural approach. This is how people live out their lives on a day to day basis, what they talk about, what they look forward to, who they hang around, how they set up their homes, etc. If you speak to people who live in long term poverty in Niagara, they do not talk about being part of anything, like a community group or even a church group. They do not talk about working out a gym, nor do they talk about going for a recreational swim or a skate. They purchase most of their clothes at thrift stores, if they have extra money at all. Most have never been to other parts of the region, measured in lengths of time in years, not weeks or months. They have friendships, but they are usually unstable, or only with people who are in similar circumstances. Only a minority of them attend agencies for assistance; when I ask them why, they say that the agencies in question "won't do anything". They never talk about going to the movies, eating out, going on vacation, or anything.
When I speak to people of the middle or upper middle classes of Niagara Region, they speak of activities they have enrolled their children in, some involvement they may have had with their children's schools, a recent trip the family took up north to "relax", or a garden they are attempting to grow in their backyard. They talk about books they've read, meetings they've attended, or items they recently heard discussed on the news. Some like to talk about their "gadgets", as many people like to use electronics that seem to be falling in price over time ... they talk about their iPods, iPads, Black Berries, cell phone plans (and which ones are a rip off), as well, where their family went to eat last weekend. Occasionally, there may some discussion about investments, particularly in who is best to work with, and how badly or how well they fared in the recession.
Among the better educated middle and upper class, politics, economics, theories and medical advances become more of a topic of discussion, and these people appear to be more inquisitive and open about different ideas. Among the lower income people, I only hear questions, "Do you think McGuinty is going to give us a raise? What do you think is going to happen to my special diet allowance?". To these people, the "rich" are a monolithic group of people, who the lower income people perceive to be receiving a disproportionate amount of help for their issues. Whenever I try to explain that people are very different from one another even within their respective economic positions, the lower income people find it hard to believe. That there is as much unhappiness among the middle and upper classes is hard for them to believe as well, although the source of their issues tend to be very divergent.
However, among lower income people, the issues are less divergent, as lower income people are unable to experience the same range of experiences as people in the middle and upper middle classes. Low income people don't concern themselves as much about the stock market, or the economy, because they do not feel they are a part of it, even though many of these issues also have some impact on their successes as well. It is not that they do not want the same things as anybody else. They do. When I ask low income people what they want, their answers are very similar to what the answers are from middle and upper income families. They want their own homes, good schools for their kids to go to, good health, an interesting job, to take a trip somewhere, etc. The difference is that the lower income people often don't have the range of experience with many of these issues as others do, and tend to involve themselves less with their children's schools, with the community, etc. than others do.
However, because the lower income people want the same things as others, they do not want to be be distinguished by others as "poor", and they are very much aware of how most others think about them. If you were in a situation where others would typically think negatively about you, would you be public about belonging to this disadvantaged group? Mental illness is a good example. Many people suffer from this issue, or have family members that do, yet many people, regardless of wealth or lack thereof, refuse to seek help from the traditional "mental health system" because of its power to label one and deem you to be "different" and "not like other people". Poverty has a similar impact on one's experience - most try to hide it. A recent study on food insecurity found that 1 in 8 people are insecure with respect to being hungry at least part of each month. Yet less than 1 in 5 of those food insecure persons ever sought help from a food bank.
I do believe if there was a voice for low income people in Niagara, this "poor school" would be a non-starter. The lives of Niagara's poor have been and continue to be depicted and assumed by Niagara's non-poor, usually those that have some degree of power. To me, this is unacceptable. The poor should have their lives determined by others, no more than the lives of other people of at least some means should be. If the education bureaucrats really wanted to find a way to decrease the drop-out rate among poor students and get more of them to attend college and unversity, there are other ways to do this. One great example is called Pathways to Education, which was started in Toronto's lower income neighbourhoods, and has since spread to other communities. The success of this program is unprecedented - drop-out rates have been cut to less than 20% of the percentage they were prior to the introduction of Pathways, and the number of participants going on to college or university have substantially increased to a level that is closer to those from non-poor families.
The difference with Pathways is that it is conducted in the child's home school. They do not go anywhere else for this program, nor do they line up for a special class or some other tell-tale location for this program. Nobody has to know about the child's participation in this program if the child chooses to keep it this way. The why of Niagara's public board choosing the segregated option is obvious to me; they why not of choosing the integrated option is not so obvious. Hopefully, there will not be enough poor families registering for this school to make it worthwhile, so it would have to be cancelled and perhaps, Pathways be put on the table.
Your thoughts?
The response to this issues was predictable, according to the Board chair, but they are pushing ahead with it anyways. They have several "partners" on board, such as the YMCA, Community Care, Brock University and Niagara College. The post-secondary institutions may soon host this "school", but even that is not guaranteed. Community Care is on board, of course, so they have a permanent place for their "poor" clients, as opposed to making an effort to get people out of poverty to begin with so they wouldn't need segregated schools of this type in the first place. The YMCA also offers employment programs.
My first question was, "Did they ask a single low income family if they wanted a program like this?" Of course not. I did. Not a single one of those that I asked will enroll their children in this school. In the regular mainstream school system, there are thousands of low income children in attendance, and some schools are better than others at addressing the problem. The schools that do the worst job of it expect the parents or the students to identify themselves as "in need", and then be given "charity". Because only a small minority of such families in this position come forward this way, the number of low income families is grossly underestimated. Moreover, most of the low income families I know do not even go to food banks or other agencies for help, because of the shame and ridicule they feel they will get in response to their request for help.
Even on Face Book and on the public section of websites for the newspapers themselves that published the story about the new school, it is opposed at least 5:1 by the public, many of whom are also low income themselves. I know for the period of time in my youth when I was from a low income situation, I was not eager for others to know about my situation, so I kept a lot of my feelings and experiences to myself. I would not ever consider asking the school or anybody outside for help, nor did any of my friends that found themselves in similar situations. There is no evidence to suggest any of this has changed, where children are coming to school without boots, saying they "forgot", the same with their lunches ... easier to forget than to admit there are no boots or lunches to be found. I am also aware of at least two families with kids that say they are "allergic" to pizza on pizza days, or simply don't feel like going on that camping trip.
The school board tries to tell parents to come forward with their situation and ask for help, but in my experience through working with these families, this often came with other strings attached, such as Children's Aid getting called, teachers expecting less of the students in these circumstances, or unnecessary referrals to "diagnose" the child with some type of ADHD or other mental illness de jour. Parents know these risks. They hear it happening to others in their housing complex, or to their friends and neighbours, and then they do not want to dare. It is less costly to do without than to put onself in the spotlight of being amongst the "unwashed, unclean and generally less valued" of our society. I have heard many earfuls given to me, even when I suggest a trip to community care, emergency welfare assistance, etc. I can only imagine the horror that would be felt by their kids who would not only have to self-identify to their teachers, etc. of their situation, but to their neighbours, etc. when they see them bussed off to the "poor kids' school".
The other issue with this school is that students not eligible for enrollment if either parent is college or university educated. This continues to feed on the stereotype that people are poor because they are not educated and lack skills. I have come across many well-educated low income persons, many of whom do not even readily admit being low income because of this stereotype that also blames them for whatever it was that did not lead their status to rise with their education. Many live at home with their parents, attempting to stay off the welfare rolls. Others attempt to continue their schooling, at least on a part-time basis. Others are working in low wage, low skill jobs that don't even require any education to do, as they have been screened out of better paid work for various reasons.
The other requirement is that parents have to put in 15 hours a month in volunteer time for the new school. Again, there is a broad assumption that even though they are bussing the kids in from all over Niagara, that the parents in question have their own means of transportation to do this volunteer work. Niagara always had a belief that everybody living in the region can drive and has access to a personal vehicle, and if they don't for whatever reason, it is because the person is a drunk, a drug addict or did something criminal to "deserve" having lost their license. Most non-drivers in Niagara do not fit that description at all, yet they are ridiculed, blamed, attacked and belittled, and left out of most opportunities that Niagara's employers reserve only for drivers. The one study that I am aware of is that among adults that use employment assistance services in Niagara, 93% of them do not have both a driver's license and a car.
While their education would be streamed to college or university attendance, and these students would be guaranteed summer jobs, it would also seem to me that the resources, limited as they may be, will only be taken out of the maintstream schools where the vast majority of low income students will continue to attend. For those remaining students, or those that apply and do not get into the Academy for whatever reason, will only continue to remain close-mouthed about their circumstances and try to survive the mainstream school system that will only be more hostile to them, as there will even be less resources to go around.
To me, more work needs to be done to get the PARENTS out of poverty, as opposed to trying to stop what some call a "cycle of poverty". The cycle needs to stop at the children's parents, not at the children themselves. If a parent has financial resources, then there will be less of a need for a "poor kids' school" in Niagara. While politicians continue to pretend the recession is over for people in this region, as well as most of Canada, they ignore the fact that there has been little job recovery. I am still talking to adults that don't even care if they work minimum wage, etc., who are having major trouble even finding part-time minimum wage work at a Tim Horton's. If there was a job recovery, there would be nobody like this.
The problem that people do not see is that I understand people's lives from an ethnocultural approach. This is how people live out their lives on a day to day basis, what they talk about, what they look forward to, who they hang around, how they set up their homes, etc. If you speak to people who live in long term poverty in Niagara, they do not talk about being part of anything, like a community group or even a church group. They do not talk about working out a gym, nor do they talk about going for a recreational swim or a skate. They purchase most of their clothes at thrift stores, if they have extra money at all. Most have never been to other parts of the region, measured in lengths of time in years, not weeks or months. They have friendships, but they are usually unstable, or only with people who are in similar circumstances. Only a minority of them attend agencies for assistance; when I ask them why, they say that the agencies in question "won't do anything". They never talk about going to the movies, eating out, going on vacation, or anything.
When I speak to people of the middle or upper middle classes of Niagara Region, they speak of activities they have enrolled their children in, some involvement they may have had with their children's schools, a recent trip the family took up north to "relax", or a garden they are attempting to grow in their backyard. They talk about books they've read, meetings they've attended, or items they recently heard discussed on the news. Some like to talk about their "gadgets", as many people like to use electronics that seem to be falling in price over time ... they talk about their iPods, iPads, Black Berries, cell phone plans (and which ones are a rip off), as well, where their family went to eat last weekend. Occasionally, there may some discussion about investments, particularly in who is best to work with, and how badly or how well they fared in the recession.
Among the better educated middle and upper class, politics, economics, theories and medical advances become more of a topic of discussion, and these people appear to be more inquisitive and open about different ideas. Among the lower income people, I only hear questions, "Do you think McGuinty is going to give us a raise? What do you think is going to happen to my special diet allowance?". To these people, the "rich" are a monolithic group of people, who the lower income people perceive to be receiving a disproportionate amount of help for their issues. Whenever I try to explain that people are very different from one another even within their respective economic positions, the lower income people find it hard to believe. That there is as much unhappiness among the middle and upper classes is hard for them to believe as well, although the source of their issues tend to be very divergent.
However, among lower income people, the issues are less divergent, as lower income people are unable to experience the same range of experiences as people in the middle and upper middle classes. Low income people don't concern themselves as much about the stock market, or the economy, because they do not feel they are a part of it, even though many of these issues also have some impact on their successes as well. It is not that they do not want the same things as anybody else. They do. When I ask low income people what they want, their answers are very similar to what the answers are from middle and upper income families. They want their own homes, good schools for their kids to go to, good health, an interesting job, to take a trip somewhere, etc. The difference is that the lower income people often don't have the range of experience with many of these issues as others do, and tend to involve themselves less with their children's schools, with the community, etc. than others do.
However, because the lower income people want the same things as others, they do not want to be be distinguished by others as "poor", and they are very much aware of how most others think about them. If you were in a situation where others would typically think negatively about you, would you be public about belonging to this disadvantaged group? Mental illness is a good example. Many people suffer from this issue, or have family members that do, yet many people, regardless of wealth or lack thereof, refuse to seek help from the traditional "mental health system" because of its power to label one and deem you to be "different" and "not like other people". Poverty has a similar impact on one's experience - most try to hide it. A recent study on food insecurity found that 1 in 8 people are insecure with respect to being hungry at least part of each month. Yet less than 1 in 5 of those food insecure persons ever sought help from a food bank.
I do believe if there was a voice for low income people in Niagara, this "poor school" would be a non-starter. The lives of Niagara's poor have been and continue to be depicted and assumed by Niagara's non-poor, usually those that have some degree of power. To me, this is unacceptable. The poor should have their lives determined by others, no more than the lives of other people of at least some means should be. If the education bureaucrats really wanted to find a way to decrease the drop-out rate among poor students and get more of them to attend college and unversity, there are other ways to do this. One great example is called Pathways to Education, which was started in Toronto's lower income neighbourhoods, and has since spread to other communities. The success of this program is unprecedented - drop-out rates have been cut to less than 20% of the percentage they were prior to the introduction of Pathways, and the number of participants going on to college or university have substantially increased to a level that is closer to those from non-poor families.
The difference with Pathways is that it is conducted in the child's home school. They do not go anywhere else for this program, nor do they line up for a special class or some other tell-tale location for this program. Nobody has to know about the child's participation in this program if the child chooses to keep it this way. The why of Niagara's public board choosing the segregated option is obvious to me; they why not of choosing the integrated option is not so obvious. Hopefully, there will not be enough poor families registering for this school to make it worthwhile, so it would have to be cancelled and perhaps, Pathways be put on the table.
Your thoughts?
Saturday, December 25, 2010
BE GOOD TO YOUR NEIGHBOUR ON CHRISTMAS AND BASH 'EM ON THE HEAD THE OTHER 364 DAYS OF THE YEAR
I don't know about you, but while I like Christmas, I have little tolerance for the hypocrisy of the charitable sector and the upper middle class and some wealthy families in our country. Many of these people are quite active in "adopt a-family" campaigns, "give a child a Christmas: and "Christmas hamper" programs that they forget that the other 364 days of the year, these same people bash the same people who they just sponsored for these Christmas charities as "leeches", "lazy", "failures", etc. While I don't think ill is begotten by these campaigns, but little thought is given to the targets of them, how they feel about being adopted, pitied, awash with charity and fake neighbourly love, while at the same time, other days of the year, punished for their very position and circumstances.
This does not include all people of upper middle class or wealthy sectors, but a good amount of them. This also applies to "back to school". Newspapers are awash with media poornography dealing with how "wonderful" some company or organization has been to raise so many dollars from all of their "fortunate" (therefore, respectable and heroic) members to donate to all those "poor, pathetic, down-on-their luck failures" in our society. While they would never identify such persons as failures, an alarming number of people that give to charities consider those that receive from the same to be failures. Surveys have been done of staff in the charitable sector, and it was found they are just as likely to hold prejudicial views of those that approach them for help that members of the general public do.
For example, it is believed by these people that people are poor because they do not manage their money well, that they were wrongfully discharged from psychiatric or penal institutions, that they have no skills or lack a high school education. This is becoming less and less the norm; in fact, the norm of those that turn to charities are people who are really no different than members of the general public. Poor bashing originates from the necessity to create "otherness" in the population of the poor and homeless. People that donate to charities think they still have their jobs because they possess a work ethic and "work hard". Research originating from Jones and Harris blames the "fundamental attribution error" for this way of thinking, where if something horrible happens to somebody, that that person is somehow to blame for their circumstances and if something good happens, that person somehow did something to deserve it. This attribution error has self-serving properties, as it assuages those of us that are not falling on hard times that it will not happen to us, as we lack the internal qualities we attribute to those that these things happen to (e.g. lazy, mentally ill, a criminal). I shown readers in an earlier blog that laziness does not only reside in some of the jobless, but many wealthy and working people too. Wealth today is less likely to be earned as it might have been decades in the past.
In the recent Toronto municipal election, people elected Rob Ford because he appeared to be "an ordinary guy". People like Rob Ford and his brother, Doug Ford, both ran and won in the past municipal election. Both grew up as and remain to this day to be multi-millionaires. They own a company that was handed down to them by parents and likely grandparents that started it and made it successful. One only need see that if either Ford has enough time to be full-time councilor and Mayor, respectively, they are obviously not "working hard" in their business that they seem to be so responsible for. Being a member of a corporate board of directors or an owner of a large company is really not that much work. You just pay other people to run it for you and stop by once in awhile to make sure they are doing a good job. It is likely other people, perhaps, other members of the Ford family or perhaps, even hired management is doing the real work in this company. While I am not saying the Fords are doing anything wrong or their gains were ill-gotten, they cannot realistically portray themselves to be "ordinary guys". In my view, a single parent that works three part-time minimum wage jobs to keep her family's head above water works much harder than any CEO and nobody will convince me otherwise.
They, like most other wealthy people, won what is known as the Ovarian lottery. The "ovarian lottery" was named by Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men, one of the few who will actually speak out about the nonsense of further tax cuts for the wealthy. Most wealth, high incomes and high level opportunities are inherited in some way - either by money given to them by living parents to complete their education, a business successorship, an inheritances after the parents or other close relatives die or similar circumstances. More about Buffet's analogy is written in Linda McQuaig and Meil Brooks' book entitled "The Trouble with Billionaires".
Before those of you reading this think this is a "left wing" commentary (which I don't understand as I don't relate well with the so-called left either), this book and its analysis was rated very positively by the managing editor of the National Post, typically a small-c conservative publication. There are others that are not as famous that also speak out about the wrong-headedness of further tax cuts for wealthy people. Tax cuts for corporations has never been proven to increase the salaries and benefit levels of those working for these companies, nor have they proven to distribute wealth or even opportunity equitably among the whole population. The founder of Wal-Mart, for example, was also one of the world's richest men, but we know people working at Wal-Mart earn very close to minimum wage. The same applies to the Weston family who still owns the largest stake in Loblaw's grocery stores and most workers in these stores are minimum wage and part-time.
Moreover, in their latest book, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, authors of The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everybody, comparisons among so called "rich" nations are made and various factors, such as infant mortality, incarceration rates, prevalence of certain kinds of health conditions (such as diabetes, heart disease), high school graduation rate, etc. were compared on the basis of a single independent variable: the gap of wealth and income within the nation's population. Wilkinson is an economic and a medical epidemiologist that is a full professor in London, England. His co-author, Kate Pickett, is also a professor of epidemiology and is a Career Scientist with the National Institutes of Health Research.
In Harper's Canada, the only real career path of the future will be as a police officer, a correctional services worker, a probation and parole officer, security consultant and other "criminal justice" type careers. Harper's current agenda of being "tough on crime" is going to prove itself to be not only a dismal failure, but a financially irresponsible one as well. Our crime rate has actually dropped over the past couple of decades, as an aging population is less likely to breed a new (and growing) generation of violent criminals. Further, research cited in Wilkinson and Pickett has shown that non-violent offenders entering the penal system are further away from being rehabilitated and are more likely to commit further and more violent crimes in the future. In this age of "zero tolerance", economic distress is increased among those caught up in it who can ill afford to adequately defend themselves. Even the Provincial Offences Act of Ontario has taken on a very heavy handed approach to many of its offences, making more of them "strict liability" (which means there is less flexibility in defending oneself as well as range of penalties available regardless of the defendant's circumstances). The goal here is to send more and more people to jail, more and more people to destitution and more and more people into circumstances where they can come out much more distressed and recalcitrant.
I don't care what proponents of tougher crime laws want. They have a false sense of security with tougher crime laws in place. They tell us, "if people just think before they commit the crime, then they won't get punished". That is easy to believe from a middle class, supportive familial context, where opportunities, money and resources are not a problem. Those of lesser circumstances are not necessarily more violent, but they can get caught up in things that will now can result in a penal sentence. This list includes failure to pay child support, failure to appear in court (e.g. sometimes it is hard to notify somebody of their court date when the defendant does not have a fixed address), driving under suspension, alcohol and drug related offenses, prostitution-related offenses and some property related offenses. Yes, these things can result in jail terms. They say there's no debtor's prison in Canada, but there are more than a few ways where unreconciled debts and fines can eventually put one in jail.
Persons with mental health issues can sometimes join a diversion program where they can participate in a treatment program instead of going through the penal system, and for this group of people, this has proven to be effective. However, most of the people who are caught in these cycles are not always involved in the mental health system, have few supports outside of the same people that got them in trouble in the first place, and very little money. A broader crime prevention and neighbourhood rehabilitation strategy would be much more effective than a "get tough" approach on crime. Open, supportive and non-traditional supports to persons living in disadvantaged situations can prevent people from going that direction in the first place, or get them to change their behaviour.
I am not opposed to tough sentences for child molesters, murderers, organized crime, etc. In fact, I would also like to see a "tough on crime" movement for corporate crimes, such as tax evasion by company executives, pilfering of pensions funds from employee trusts, embezzlement, contractor fraud, etc. by so-called "white collar criminals". These sorts of "white collar types" are least likely to go to jail in Canada, even though they destroy many lives and are often unrepentant for what they did and usually repeat their crimes many times before they finally get shut down. If they do go to jail, it is usually for short terms and usually in favourable conditions (e.g. minimum security, early release for "good behaviour").
It is so ironic that those that support continued and increased inequality in our society seem to believe that "welfare fraud" is a huge problem, while corporate fraud is not. It is in fact the other way around, especially given the government's own statistics, as cited by others. This information came up during the inquest into the death of Kimberley Rogers, who was convicted of "welfare fraud" for having the audacity to use OSAP to get her college diploma while trying to get by on a very reduced welfare cheque. Rogers ended up getting house arrest and being barred from receiving welfare as her penalty ... as a result, she fell very far behind in her rent and was basically a prisoner in a very overheated apartment lacking air conditioning during that hot summer. She died, while she was also pregnant with her first child. Welfare fraud was studied and was found to constitute less than 1% of all monies paid out to recipients. Income tax evasion or fraud is known to be much more common and involve greater amounts of money, but only rarely gets prosecuted. The reason for this is that those that subvert our income tax laws often have the resources of highly skilled accountants and tax lawyers and can afford to front a strong defense, if charged.
At the same time, the same people that endorse policies that lead to a more unequal society tend to give to charities that do nothing to advance the interests of the poor. I have yet to find a single person who was brought out of poverty as a result of seeking help from a food bank, a homeless shelter or any similar charity. After they get their nourishment this month, they will only be hungry again and in need of help the next month, all the while those giving and perpetuating these charities continue to benefit from charitable tax deductions and other ways to hide their wealth. To me, a business would do a hell of a lot more for the poor by hiring people off the welfare rolls, qualified to do the work of course and paying them decent wages. For those they cannot hire, they can sponsor scholarships and trust funds to allow low income people to get a post-secondary education and/or to develop their own assets.
Organizations like Social and Enterprise Development Innovations provide an alternative to perpetuating poverty among the poor and treating them so much like outsiders like we do now. There are programs they develop to assist low income people into developing their own businesses, setting up individual development accounts and furthering their education. The Metcalf Foundation of Toronto also sponsors research and programs that assist in change development as well, much of it through awareness of how current welfare programs serve to keep people in poverty. Social class mobility in Canada has substantially declined since the late 1980's, given the tightening of social program eligiblity and the softening of the labour market. To argue that everybody has equal opportunity may be true, but for many, that opportunity is very, very difficult to access when society continues to put barriers in place to those that need this access the most.
Your thoughts?
This does not include all people of upper middle class or wealthy sectors, but a good amount of them. This also applies to "back to school". Newspapers are awash with media poornography dealing with how "wonderful" some company or organization has been to raise so many dollars from all of their "fortunate" (therefore, respectable and heroic) members to donate to all those "poor, pathetic, down-on-their luck failures" in our society. While they would never identify such persons as failures, an alarming number of people that give to charities consider those that receive from the same to be failures. Surveys have been done of staff in the charitable sector, and it was found they are just as likely to hold prejudicial views of those that approach them for help that members of the general public do.
For example, it is believed by these people that people are poor because they do not manage their money well, that they were wrongfully discharged from psychiatric or penal institutions, that they have no skills or lack a high school education. This is becoming less and less the norm; in fact, the norm of those that turn to charities are people who are really no different than members of the general public. Poor bashing originates from the necessity to create "otherness" in the population of the poor and homeless. People that donate to charities think they still have their jobs because they possess a work ethic and "work hard". Research originating from Jones and Harris blames the "fundamental attribution error" for this way of thinking, where if something horrible happens to somebody, that that person is somehow to blame for their circumstances and if something good happens, that person somehow did something to deserve it. This attribution error has self-serving properties, as it assuages those of us that are not falling on hard times that it will not happen to us, as we lack the internal qualities we attribute to those that these things happen to (e.g. lazy, mentally ill, a criminal). I shown readers in an earlier blog that laziness does not only reside in some of the jobless, but many wealthy and working people too. Wealth today is less likely to be earned as it might have been decades in the past.
In the recent Toronto municipal election, people elected Rob Ford because he appeared to be "an ordinary guy". People like Rob Ford and his brother, Doug Ford, both ran and won in the past municipal election. Both grew up as and remain to this day to be multi-millionaires. They own a company that was handed down to them by parents and likely grandparents that started it and made it successful. One only need see that if either Ford has enough time to be full-time councilor and Mayor, respectively, they are obviously not "working hard" in their business that they seem to be so responsible for. Being a member of a corporate board of directors or an owner of a large company is really not that much work. You just pay other people to run it for you and stop by once in awhile to make sure they are doing a good job. It is likely other people, perhaps, other members of the Ford family or perhaps, even hired management is doing the real work in this company. While I am not saying the Fords are doing anything wrong or their gains were ill-gotten, they cannot realistically portray themselves to be "ordinary guys". In my view, a single parent that works three part-time minimum wage jobs to keep her family's head above water works much harder than any CEO and nobody will convince me otherwise.
They, like most other wealthy people, won what is known as the Ovarian lottery. The "ovarian lottery" was named by Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men, one of the few who will actually speak out about the nonsense of further tax cuts for the wealthy. Most wealth, high incomes and high level opportunities are inherited in some way - either by money given to them by living parents to complete their education, a business successorship, an inheritances after the parents or other close relatives die or similar circumstances. More about Buffet's analogy is written in Linda McQuaig and Meil Brooks' book entitled "The Trouble with Billionaires".
Before those of you reading this think this is a "left wing" commentary (which I don't understand as I don't relate well with the so-called left either), this book and its analysis was rated very positively by the managing editor of the National Post, typically a small-c conservative publication. There are others that are not as famous that also speak out about the wrong-headedness of further tax cuts for wealthy people. Tax cuts for corporations has never been proven to increase the salaries and benefit levels of those working for these companies, nor have they proven to distribute wealth or even opportunity equitably among the whole population. The founder of Wal-Mart, for example, was also one of the world's richest men, but we know people working at Wal-Mart earn very close to minimum wage. The same applies to the Weston family who still owns the largest stake in Loblaw's grocery stores and most workers in these stores are minimum wage and part-time.
Moreover, in their latest book, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, authors of The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everybody, comparisons among so called "rich" nations are made and various factors, such as infant mortality, incarceration rates, prevalence of certain kinds of health conditions (such as diabetes, heart disease), high school graduation rate, etc. were compared on the basis of a single independent variable: the gap of wealth and income within the nation's population. Wilkinson is an economic and a medical epidemiologist that is a full professor in London, England. His co-author, Kate Pickett, is also a professor of epidemiology and is a Career Scientist with the National Institutes of Health Research.
In Harper's Canada, the only real career path of the future will be as a police officer, a correctional services worker, a probation and parole officer, security consultant and other "criminal justice" type careers. Harper's current agenda of being "tough on crime" is going to prove itself to be not only a dismal failure, but a financially irresponsible one as well. Our crime rate has actually dropped over the past couple of decades, as an aging population is less likely to breed a new (and growing) generation of violent criminals. Further, research cited in Wilkinson and Pickett has shown that non-violent offenders entering the penal system are further away from being rehabilitated and are more likely to commit further and more violent crimes in the future. In this age of "zero tolerance", economic distress is increased among those caught up in it who can ill afford to adequately defend themselves. Even the Provincial Offences Act of Ontario has taken on a very heavy handed approach to many of its offences, making more of them "strict liability" (which means there is less flexibility in defending oneself as well as range of penalties available regardless of the defendant's circumstances). The goal here is to send more and more people to jail, more and more people to destitution and more and more people into circumstances where they can come out much more distressed and recalcitrant.
I don't care what proponents of tougher crime laws want. They have a false sense of security with tougher crime laws in place. They tell us, "if people just think before they commit the crime, then they won't get punished". That is easy to believe from a middle class, supportive familial context, where opportunities, money and resources are not a problem. Those of lesser circumstances are not necessarily more violent, but they can get caught up in things that will now can result in a penal sentence. This list includes failure to pay child support, failure to appear in court (e.g. sometimes it is hard to notify somebody of their court date when the defendant does not have a fixed address), driving under suspension, alcohol and drug related offenses, prostitution-related offenses and some property related offenses. Yes, these things can result in jail terms. They say there's no debtor's prison in Canada, but there are more than a few ways where unreconciled debts and fines can eventually put one in jail.
Persons with mental health issues can sometimes join a diversion program where they can participate in a treatment program instead of going through the penal system, and for this group of people, this has proven to be effective. However, most of the people who are caught in these cycles are not always involved in the mental health system, have few supports outside of the same people that got them in trouble in the first place, and very little money. A broader crime prevention and neighbourhood rehabilitation strategy would be much more effective than a "get tough" approach on crime. Open, supportive and non-traditional supports to persons living in disadvantaged situations can prevent people from going that direction in the first place, or get them to change their behaviour.
I am not opposed to tough sentences for child molesters, murderers, organized crime, etc. In fact, I would also like to see a "tough on crime" movement for corporate crimes, such as tax evasion by company executives, pilfering of pensions funds from employee trusts, embezzlement, contractor fraud, etc. by so-called "white collar criminals". These sorts of "white collar types" are least likely to go to jail in Canada, even though they destroy many lives and are often unrepentant for what they did and usually repeat their crimes many times before they finally get shut down. If they do go to jail, it is usually for short terms and usually in favourable conditions (e.g. minimum security, early release for "good behaviour").
It is so ironic that those that support continued and increased inequality in our society seem to believe that "welfare fraud" is a huge problem, while corporate fraud is not. It is in fact the other way around, especially given the government's own statistics, as cited by others. This information came up during the inquest into the death of Kimberley Rogers, who was convicted of "welfare fraud" for having the audacity to use OSAP to get her college diploma while trying to get by on a very reduced welfare cheque. Rogers ended up getting house arrest and being barred from receiving welfare as her penalty ... as a result, she fell very far behind in her rent and was basically a prisoner in a very overheated apartment lacking air conditioning during that hot summer. She died, while she was also pregnant with her first child. Welfare fraud was studied and was found to constitute less than 1% of all monies paid out to recipients. Income tax evasion or fraud is known to be much more common and involve greater amounts of money, but only rarely gets prosecuted. The reason for this is that those that subvert our income tax laws often have the resources of highly skilled accountants and tax lawyers and can afford to front a strong defense, if charged.
At the same time, the same people that endorse policies that lead to a more unequal society tend to give to charities that do nothing to advance the interests of the poor. I have yet to find a single person who was brought out of poverty as a result of seeking help from a food bank, a homeless shelter or any similar charity. After they get their nourishment this month, they will only be hungry again and in need of help the next month, all the while those giving and perpetuating these charities continue to benefit from charitable tax deductions and other ways to hide their wealth. To me, a business would do a hell of a lot more for the poor by hiring people off the welfare rolls, qualified to do the work of course and paying them decent wages. For those they cannot hire, they can sponsor scholarships and trust funds to allow low income people to get a post-secondary education and/or to develop their own assets.
Organizations like Social and Enterprise Development Innovations provide an alternative to perpetuating poverty among the poor and treating them so much like outsiders like we do now. There are programs they develop to assist low income people into developing their own businesses, setting up individual development accounts and furthering their education. The Metcalf Foundation of Toronto also sponsors research and programs that assist in change development as well, much of it through awareness of how current welfare programs serve to keep people in poverty. Social class mobility in Canada has substantially declined since the late 1980's, given the tightening of social program eligiblity and the softening of the labour market. To argue that everybody has equal opportunity may be true, but for many, that opportunity is very, very difficult to access when society continues to put barriers in place to those that need this access the most.
Your thoughts?
Monday, November 29, 2010
WINTER IS COMING ... So is Christmas
Winter is coming in Niagara.
We haven't had much of the "white stuff" (or snow) yet, although other parts of Ontario have already had their first snowfall or maybe their second or third by now.
At this time of the year in my region, Out of the Cold revs up its engines and our Public Health Department issues weather warnings when the mercury is dipping too low to bear. Stores have been chiming in for Christmas since the first of July, but are really chiming it in now ... in mid-November, the annual Tree of Lights celebration takes place with the Mayor pressing the button to light up City Hall like a flame. I always wondered what would happen if the Mayor ever pressed that button and nothing happened.
Television begins to show recurrent seasonal movies and holiday themed episodes of regular series' like House, Boston Legal, etc. All day Sunday, movies showed Santa here, Santa there, and commercial jingles everywhere. In the papers, at least one or two writers beg for people to put Christ back into Christmas. I am always puzzled when people say this.
That only makes me laugh as it is known fact that Christmas does not originate from the Bible or even Christianity itself. It actually has Pagan roots. Early Christians compromised with the Pagan leaders of the day to accommodate their celebration of "Saturnalia" with the timing of "Christmas", or as determined, the birth of Christ, which has been never specified or dated anywhere in any Bible.
To prove my point, if Christmas was a Christian holiday, how come virtually everybody, including representatives of the Kitchen Sink, celebrate it - Christian or not? Holiday decorations are wrapped around public buildings, seasonal ornaments are brought out to adorn reception areas and Christmas lights light up the sky by our City Hall. In recognition that Canada is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-faith society, at least the powers that be have included signs that represent Eid for the Muslims, Diwali for the Hindu, Hanukkah for the Jewish community, as well as Christmas for everybody else, it seems.
A couple years ago, somebody created a major media flap about a Christmas tree that was on display in a courthouse and later removed by the allegedly "politically correct" administration. The reason for its removal was that some Muslims might be offended. Personally, I have yet to meet a Muslim that even cares about where Christmas trees are displayed. However, this whole perception of who will and will not get offended by the ubiquitous Christmas symbols is a moot point ... I am not terribly religious myself, but if people want to celebrate Christmas as a religious rite or use it as excuse to get drunk, I could care less.
I enjoy Christmas only because it gives me a much needed break. In my family, we do decorate our home, enjoy some eggnog and exchange some gifts, but that is not the highlight of what we do during the holidays. Holidays for me is family time. Or for those who are not fortunate to have family, a time to spend with friends or to share with others. I have spent some Christmases in the past serving the homeless and lonely a Christmas meal, or joining a group of people for drinks and relaxation. A few times, all I did was eat and sleep.
Unfortunately, however, Christmas has become an occasion to further divide the social classes between the "haves" and "have nots". A friend of mine once stated this is when all the hypocrisy comes alive. Indeed, many people suddenly seem so damned caring at Christmas time, while they turn their noses down at the same people on the other 364 days of the year.
This year I wanted to give the incoming regional council something special, a new mascot of sorts. I met with an artist and educator that specialized in prehistoric creatures. He not only provides artwork, but will soon be planning workshops to students and small groups on this enigmatic period of our planet. In admiring the names of many of these prehistoric creatures, I asked if he could create a "Niagarasaurus Rex" for me, based on the Tyrannosaurus variety. I wanted it placed on a large plaque with a caption that is timeless and can be hung right in the region's chambers - in a location that the TV cameras filming regional council meetings can't miss when they cover council sessions. He told me that he probably wouldn't do something like this. (He never said why, but I assume doing this would insult the dinosaurs - I would somewhat agree).
As Christmas passes in Niagara, we go through a very depressing period of time in January and February where nothing really happens, unless Valentine's Day is a big thing for you. The days get busier for me, as I am usually dealing with crisis after crisis among those that come through my doors. There is not a lot of mental health support for people in Niagara, although we have lots of people seeking it or needing it, or both. One cannot take a relaxing stroll down certain downtown streets in Niagara without encountering people engaged in drug deals, involved in the sex trade or getting drunk. Downtown can be an awful place after dark. In the spring, I get a flurry of new auto accident cases, as many people here still don't know how to drive in the winter and get struck. It is not necessarily the victim's fault; usually, it is the other drivers, many of whom still use cell phones as they drive or even drive while drunk.
After Christmas is over in Niagara, we don't hear about the homeless, the poor and the less fortunate anymore, because as my friend said about hypocrisy, most people only believe they exist once a year and even daring to question the political priorities and economic policies that led to them being here in the first place for us to garnish our guilty hearts with over the holiday season is even more politically incorrect than removing a few Christmas trees from the courthouse lobby.
I can only hope for a Christmas gift that I will never receive and that is the experience of boundless diversity and human tolerance and acceptance of people as they are in Niagara (as well as everywhere else),where anybody can be who they are without judgment, without criticism and without exclusion, and no person will ever have to rely on the periodic and irregular goodwill of others for their basic survival.
As somebody who has worked in the legal profession too long and before this, in social work, I have seen too much abuse of those by the so-called goodwill of others.
Your thoughts?
We haven't had much of the "white stuff" (or snow) yet, although other parts of Ontario have already had their first snowfall or maybe their second or third by now.
At this time of the year in my region, Out of the Cold revs up its engines and our Public Health Department issues weather warnings when the mercury is dipping too low to bear. Stores have been chiming in for Christmas since the first of July, but are really chiming it in now ... in mid-November, the annual Tree of Lights celebration takes place with the Mayor pressing the button to light up City Hall like a flame. I always wondered what would happen if the Mayor ever pressed that button and nothing happened.
Television begins to show recurrent seasonal movies and holiday themed episodes of regular series' like House, Boston Legal, etc. All day Sunday, movies showed Santa here, Santa there, and commercial jingles everywhere. In the papers, at least one or two writers beg for people to put Christ back into Christmas. I am always puzzled when people say this.
That only makes me laugh as it is known fact that Christmas does not originate from the Bible or even Christianity itself. It actually has Pagan roots. Early Christians compromised with the Pagan leaders of the day to accommodate their celebration of "Saturnalia" with the timing of "Christmas", or as determined, the birth of Christ, which has been never specified or dated anywhere in any Bible.
To prove my point, if Christmas was a Christian holiday, how come virtually everybody, including representatives of the Kitchen Sink, celebrate it - Christian or not? Holiday decorations are wrapped around public buildings, seasonal ornaments are brought out to adorn reception areas and Christmas lights light up the sky by our City Hall. In recognition that Canada is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-faith society, at least the powers that be have included signs that represent Eid for the Muslims, Diwali for the Hindu, Hanukkah for the Jewish community, as well as Christmas for everybody else, it seems.
A couple years ago, somebody created a major media flap about a Christmas tree that was on display in a courthouse and later removed by the allegedly "politically correct" administration. The reason for its removal was that some Muslims might be offended. Personally, I have yet to meet a Muslim that even cares about where Christmas trees are displayed. However, this whole perception of who will and will not get offended by the ubiquitous Christmas symbols is a moot point ... I am not terribly religious myself, but if people want to celebrate Christmas as a religious rite or use it as excuse to get drunk, I could care less.
I enjoy Christmas only because it gives me a much needed break. In my family, we do decorate our home, enjoy some eggnog and exchange some gifts, but that is not the highlight of what we do during the holidays. Holidays for me is family time. Or for those who are not fortunate to have family, a time to spend with friends or to share with others. I have spent some Christmases in the past serving the homeless and lonely a Christmas meal, or joining a group of people for drinks and relaxation. A few times, all I did was eat and sleep.
Unfortunately, however, Christmas has become an occasion to further divide the social classes between the "haves" and "have nots". A friend of mine once stated this is when all the hypocrisy comes alive. Indeed, many people suddenly seem so damned caring at Christmas time, while they turn their noses down at the same people on the other 364 days of the year.
This year I wanted to give the incoming regional council something special, a new mascot of sorts. I met with an artist and educator that specialized in prehistoric creatures. He not only provides artwork, but will soon be planning workshops to students and small groups on this enigmatic period of our planet. In admiring the names of many of these prehistoric creatures, I asked if he could create a "Niagarasaurus Rex" for me, based on the Tyrannosaurus variety. I wanted it placed on a large plaque with a caption that is timeless and can be hung right in the region's chambers - in a location that the TV cameras filming regional council meetings can't miss when they cover council sessions. He told me that he probably wouldn't do something like this. (He never said why, but I assume doing this would insult the dinosaurs - I would somewhat agree).
As Christmas passes in Niagara, we go through a very depressing period of time in January and February where nothing really happens, unless Valentine's Day is a big thing for you. The days get busier for me, as I am usually dealing with crisis after crisis among those that come through my doors. There is not a lot of mental health support for people in Niagara, although we have lots of people seeking it or needing it, or both. One cannot take a relaxing stroll down certain downtown streets in Niagara without encountering people engaged in drug deals, involved in the sex trade or getting drunk. Downtown can be an awful place after dark. In the spring, I get a flurry of new auto accident cases, as many people here still don't know how to drive in the winter and get struck. It is not necessarily the victim's fault; usually, it is the other drivers, many of whom still use cell phones as they drive or even drive while drunk.
After Christmas is over in Niagara, we don't hear about the homeless, the poor and the less fortunate anymore, because as my friend said about hypocrisy, most people only believe they exist once a year and even daring to question the political priorities and economic policies that led to them being here in the first place for us to garnish our guilty hearts with over the holiday season is even more politically incorrect than removing a few Christmas trees from the courthouse lobby.
I can only hope for a Christmas gift that I will never receive and that is the experience of boundless diversity and human tolerance and acceptance of people as they are in Niagara (as well as everywhere else),where anybody can be who they are without judgment, without criticism and without exclusion, and no person will ever have to rely on the periodic and irregular goodwill of others for their basic survival.
As somebody who has worked in the legal profession too long and before this, in social work, I have seen too much abuse of those by the so-called goodwill of others.
Your thoughts?
Monday, November 22, 2010
INCOME INSECURITY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Madeleine Meilleur, the Minister of Community and Social Services, has been making a lot of noises lately about how there are too many people on ODSP, and how it is too "easy" to get onto ODSP. These comments have been made while community groups have tried to meet with her to open discussions on the special diet changes that are forthcoming, whereas the Madame Minister had promised that "not everybody who gets the special diet today will continue to get it under the new program". These two statements are code for big cuts ahead and as advocates, we need to be alert to these sorts of trends and comments.
As posted here before, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has made a ruling that the Ontario government, even under the guise of a "special program" cannot discriminate between disabilities without rationale. These cases were taken to the Human Rights Tribunal with the assistance of the Ontario Human Rights Commission after a former Minister of Community and Social Services amended the special diets program into a supplement program for persons with any one or more of 42 arbitrarily selected medical conditions. People without these medical conditions, or only a few of them and who experienced a decrease in their allowances, filed this Complaint. The Tribunal stated that in part, the government did discriminate against many of the applicants, and set up a test to determine eligibility that would meet the Code. Instead of complying with the Tribunal's Order and paying its bills, the government then turned around and decided to scrap the special diet altogether to replace it with a yet to be identified "nutritional supplement".
The history of the special diet file in Ontario is tainted with the fact that Madame Minister and members of the public that think like she does believe that people are using the money for something other than food. Well, maybe some folks with a little more money can actually pay rent and eat in the same month, which is something that Madame Minister never bothered investigating in the past. This issue was admittedly brought forth by community groups as a method to get a much needed increase to one's social benefits allowance to cover nutritious foods, while the government of the day remained twiddling their fingers at the switch, while more and more recipients became very ill with poverty-borne illnesses. It is stated that the real value of ODSP and Ontario Works' (or welfare) benefits have declined to a level below their value even at the time that Mike Harris exercised his axe on this program in 1995 and cut benefits by 21.6%.
A parallel and complementary campaign called Put Food in the Budget should have made Madame Minister aware that people cannot keep a roof over their head and eat well in the same month even among those that don't have medical conditions requiring a so-called "special diet". Residential rents and other utilities have skyrocketed in price, especially since the Liberals have passed several bills that are jacking up hydro and heating costs for everybody.
Last year about this time, the Minister appointed a Social Assistance Reform Advisory Council (SARAC) to advise her on the scope and depth of a proposed social assistance review as promised by the government during its so-called "poverty reduction" consultations. SARAC came back and made a very indepth comprehensive set of recommendations as to scope and latitude of such a review (and involving a broad range of social programs at both the federal and provincial level), but lately, we are hearing noises that the only place this review will actually be taking place is within Madame Meilleur's Ministry.
While advocates do welcome a review, we also have some concerns that the Liberals will use this review as a means to cut the program further and cut an unknown number of persons off ODSP, under the assumption that some of these people "can work". Madame Minister is not alone in her assumptions. Last summer, Richard August, of the Caledon Institute, wrote a paper that was critical of disability programs as such, that they tend to discourage people from re-entering the labour force and queried as to whether persons with disabilities should also have some type of labour market participation requirement in order to receive benefits. Echoed within this report and a subsequent Caledon study, which I will outline later, is some type of attempt to draft a sharp delineation between persons with disabilities that can work and those that cannot work.
Of course, there are persons with disabilities that can work that are on various disability programs. Idealistically, in a perfect world, almost all persons with disabilities "can work" at something, given the prescriptive removal of physical, technological, attitudinal and policy barriers. To me, this is a moot point, because nobody is forcing employers to hire anybody with a disability. In fact, most employers will not hire anybody with a disability, if they had a choice. Anyhow, the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (or the OECD), which we often hear about, and includes just about every so-called "rich" nation, has come up with a similar report of its own.
While the OECD praised Canada as being the country with the most stringent criteria for eligibility for disability programs, it nevertheless attacked all disability programs as removing people from the paid labour force. Again, it leads the question as to what kind of work obligation, if any, should be imposed on persons with disabilities, in order to remain eligible for benefits. It rigorously compared workplace-based disability programs that attempt to re-engage the disabled worker back into the workplace, and tried to discuss how similar programs can be established for programs like ODSP, AISH (in Alberta), CPP and Quebec disability.
While any advocate worth any salt would love to see an increased focus on assisting persons with disabilities to go back to work, or to enter the labour force for the first time, we are also quite cautious. To me, a program of this nature would not represent placing people with disabilities in jobs that will take them out of poverty and meet their educational, skill level and interests. I have spoken to employers that viewed themselves as "progressive" in the past. They hire "lots" of people with disabilities, they say - all in the mail room! Another program I am aware of was placing people in call centres, probably one of the most unstable, stressful and low paid type of position there is. Proponents of these types of programs don't care if a person "likes" their job or can live on the income derived from it, just that they want them all off benefits. This is unfortunately the way governments, including that of the provincial Liberals, seem to be going.
At the same time, groups like Caledon Institute are proposing a federal Basic Income for "persons with severe disabilities". The word "severe" is code for the fact that most persons with disabilities will not likely qualify for it, if it is ever in place. Proponents of this program want only those that qualify for BOTH the Disability Tax Credit and CPP-Disability allowance to be moved onto Basic Income. While the proponents argue that nobody should lose on such a proposal, meaning those currently on something like ODSP should continue to receive it, Caledon is stepping into potentially dangerous political territory, although I don't believe this is the intent of the report's authors.
At the present time, there is no "basic income" at the federal level apart from CPP Disability and a range of non-refundable tax credits available to some of those with disabilities. The federal government has always thought the legwork for this type of thing would be best left to the provinces to sort out. However, the trends that I am familiar with started with the Enhanced Verification Policies of the former NDP government under Bob Rae, when those who were approved for the former disability program in Ontario, then known as "Family Benefits Disability" were required to pursue ALL available income sources to which they could potentially be eligible. The list of potential sources of income included federal CPP, as well as other "first payers". If eligible for CPP-D the province would then take the monies granted through this or other programs and deduct dollar for dollar from the person's provincial disability income. This continues under ODSP.
The federal government has made several attempts to tighten the noose around the number of people drawing benefits from the CPP-D program. I have noted that even though the Federal Court of Appeal has ordered that such benefits be granted on more than the basis of disability alone, and that other factors, such as age, education and objective real world criteria must be taken into account, the so-called "real world" elements tend to be put on the back burner in light of medical evidence showing unequivocal severity of disability, e.g. lab reports, MRI's, etc. (which again is contrary to much common law in this area). One of my clients that had a leg amputated was said to be able to do "sedentary" work. At age 54, with a grade nine education, I was unsure what type of sedentary would he would be able to find. He finally was approved at the appeals stage. This has been the reality with CPP internally, and then lately, at some of the Review Tribunals, and even in a recent slew of Pension Appeals Board decisions. One has to be considered unable to work in any substantially gainful employment to qualify.
The Disability Tax Credit (DTC) is also tough to get, depending on the type of disability a person has. While the DTC does not rely on data excluding one's capacity to work, it takes a strictly functional definition of disability, whereby in practice, those with enumerated physical restrictions, such as walking, speaking, seeing, or hearing, are favoured, while those with less clear but invisible impairments have greater difficulty getting this benefit. More than 70% of persons on ODSP are receiving it due to a so-called invisible disability, whether that is mental health disability, intellectual disability, brain injury, or learning disability, and about half the remainder have physical disabilities that are not likely to meet the DTC criteria due to their episodic nature or the fact they do not fall under any clear criteria, e.g. chronic pain syndrome. I have successfully won appeals for persons seeking the DTC for "invisible" disabilities in the past, but such persons have such a degree of handicap that they are not only incapable of working, but frequently unable to care for themselves.
The Caledon Institute would give a Basic Income to those that qualify for BOTH the DTC and CPP-D, theoretically leaving the balance of persons with disabilities on ODSP. This all looks good. Let us assume that a federal government adopts this Basic Income approach. While it will provide more than ODSP, recipients will still live significantly below any poverty line, as they would be treated like senior citizens that are eligible for the GIS. They get a maximum of $14,000 a year, well below the $20,000 a year to meet the poverty line. But regardless, let us assume, they got more than that, and they can live okay on it. I already stated how the trend to uploading and downloading and offloading has started and has only sped up with abandon in the past few years, how nobody seems to want to be the first payer of income support for persons with disabilities.
Under such a plan, we are risking the Ontario government under the present or even a new constellation seeing this as an opportunity to offload "persons with disabilities". They may see this as an opportunity to save money by believing they no longer have to pay "extra" to Ontarians that have disabilities, and can get away with putting the balance of them on Ontario Works. After all, not meeting the federal criteria of being unable to do substantially gainful employment means that one can work, right? There is no LEGAL obligation on the part of Ontario to keep its ODSP program, given the federal Liberals dumping the Canada Assistance Plan Act several years ago. Any right wing government may view this as an opportunity to out do Mike Harris and do a real dump this time.
Do not think this won't ever happen. All we have to do is look south of us to the U.S. Many of us who thought the wacky Tea Party gang was a disorganized rump of angry people are now convinced that such right wing directionless thinking is actually in style and quite popular. Go to any newspaper website and read the comments section of any article that deals with social issues. People north of the U.S. border think with their wallets and think tax cuts are good, and any tax or fee is "bad", regardless of what services the taxes fund. The province's own Auditor General as much as accused the majority of people getting the dietary supplement as getting it through fraud, and that there are "overpayments in the billions" that must be put under immediate control, and subsequently he commented on the number of people receiving Ontario Works for two years or more.
Madeleine Meilleur does not want to meet with any community groups; one of the Coalitions I belong to has asked many times only to be told she was too busy. Some of our colleagues have met with her political staff, and of course, none of us are getting any answers as to what is going on, or what is being planned. The Put Food in the Budget campaign has been turned down completely because we are in a massive deficit position. There is always money to pay for $3,000 a day consultants, high priced hospital bureaucrats and huge expense accounts, but no money to feed the poor or to at least give all Ontarians an equal opportunity to take what Ontario offers.
I am not trying to frighten anybody, but we have to stand up to this attitude, which I describe at best as apathy and at worst, an actual conspiracy to attack the poor once again with yet another Mike Harris like attack. In economic recession, the poor have to wait for relief. In economic good times, the poor have to wait for relief. When do we stop waiting and start seeing the same benefits as other persons in Ontario, and be given to tools to utilize the wonderful resources this province otherwise has to offer?
Your thoughts?
As posted here before, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has made a ruling that the Ontario government, even under the guise of a "special program" cannot discriminate between disabilities without rationale. These cases were taken to the Human Rights Tribunal with the assistance of the Ontario Human Rights Commission after a former Minister of Community and Social Services amended the special diets program into a supplement program for persons with any one or more of 42 arbitrarily selected medical conditions. People without these medical conditions, or only a few of them and who experienced a decrease in their allowances, filed this Complaint. The Tribunal stated that in part, the government did discriminate against many of the applicants, and set up a test to determine eligibility that would meet the Code. Instead of complying with the Tribunal's Order and paying its bills, the government then turned around and decided to scrap the special diet altogether to replace it with a yet to be identified "nutritional supplement".
The history of the special diet file in Ontario is tainted with the fact that Madame Minister and members of the public that think like she does believe that people are using the money for something other than food. Well, maybe some folks with a little more money can actually pay rent and eat in the same month, which is something that Madame Minister never bothered investigating in the past. This issue was admittedly brought forth by community groups as a method to get a much needed increase to one's social benefits allowance to cover nutritious foods, while the government of the day remained twiddling their fingers at the switch, while more and more recipients became very ill with poverty-borne illnesses. It is stated that the real value of ODSP and Ontario Works' (or welfare) benefits have declined to a level below their value even at the time that Mike Harris exercised his axe on this program in 1995 and cut benefits by 21.6%.
A parallel and complementary campaign called Put Food in the Budget should have made Madame Minister aware that people cannot keep a roof over their head and eat well in the same month even among those that don't have medical conditions requiring a so-called "special diet". Residential rents and other utilities have skyrocketed in price, especially since the Liberals have passed several bills that are jacking up hydro and heating costs for everybody.
Last year about this time, the Minister appointed a Social Assistance Reform Advisory Council (SARAC) to advise her on the scope and depth of a proposed social assistance review as promised by the government during its so-called "poverty reduction" consultations. SARAC came back and made a very indepth comprehensive set of recommendations as to scope and latitude of such a review (and involving a broad range of social programs at both the federal and provincial level), but lately, we are hearing noises that the only place this review will actually be taking place is within Madame Meilleur's Ministry.
While advocates do welcome a review, we also have some concerns that the Liberals will use this review as a means to cut the program further and cut an unknown number of persons off ODSP, under the assumption that some of these people "can work". Madame Minister is not alone in her assumptions. Last summer, Richard August, of the Caledon Institute, wrote a paper that was critical of disability programs as such, that they tend to discourage people from re-entering the labour force and queried as to whether persons with disabilities should also have some type of labour market participation requirement in order to receive benefits. Echoed within this report and a subsequent Caledon study, which I will outline later, is some type of attempt to draft a sharp delineation between persons with disabilities that can work and those that cannot work.
Of course, there are persons with disabilities that can work that are on various disability programs. Idealistically, in a perfect world, almost all persons with disabilities "can work" at something, given the prescriptive removal of physical, technological, attitudinal and policy barriers. To me, this is a moot point, because nobody is forcing employers to hire anybody with a disability. In fact, most employers will not hire anybody with a disability, if they had a choice. Anyhow, the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (or the OECD), which we often hear about, and includes just about every so-called "rich" nation, has come up with a similar report of its own.
While the OECD praised Canada as being the country with the most stringent criteria for eligibility for disability programs, it nevertheless attacked all disability programs as removing people from the paid labour force. Again, it leads the question as to what kind of work obligation, if any, should be imposed on persons with disabilities, in order to remain eligible for benefits. It rigorously compared workplace-based disability programs that attempt to re-engage the disabled worker back into the workplace, and tried to discuss how similar programs can be established for programs like ODSP, AISH (in Alberta), CPP and Quebec disability.
While any advocate worth any salt would love to see an increased focus on assisting persons with disabilities to go back to work, or to enter the labour force for the first time, we are also quite cautious. To me, a program of this nature would not represent placing people with disabilities in jobs that will take them out of poverty and meet their educational, skill level and interests. I have spoken to employers that viewed themselves as "progressive" in the past. They hire "lots" of people with disabilities, they say - all in the mail room! Another program I am aware of was placing people in call centres, probably one of the most unstable, stressful and low paid type of position there is. Proponents of these types of programs don't care if a person "likes" their job or can live on the income derived from it, just that they want them all off benefits. This is unfortunately the way governments, including that of the provincial Liberals, seem to be going.
At the same time, groups like Caledon Institute are proposing a federal Basic Income for "persons with severe disabilities". The word "severe" is code for the fact that most persons with disabilities will not likely qualify for it, if it is ever in place. Proponents of this program want only those that qualify for BOTH the Disability Tax Credit and CPP-Disability allowance to be moved onto Basic Income. While the proponents argue that nobody should lose on such a proposal, meaning those currently on something like ODSP should continue to receive it, Caledon is stepping into potentially dangerous political territory, although I don't believe this is the intent of the report's authors.
At the present time, there is no "basic income" at the federal level apart from CPP Disability and a range of non-refundable tax credits available to some of those with disabilities. The federal government has always thought the legwork for this type of thing would be best left to the provinces to sort out. However, the trends that I am familiar with started with the Enhanced Verification Policies of the former NDP government under Bob Rae, when those who were approved for the former disability program in Ontario, then known as "Family Benefits Disability" were required to pursue ALL available income sources to which they could potentially be eligible. The list of potential sources of income included federal CPP, as well as other "first payers". If eligible for CPP-D the province would then take the monies granted through this or other programs and deduct dollar for dollar from the person's provincial disability income. This continues under ODSP.
The federal government has made several attempts to tighten the noose around the number of people drawing benefits from the CPP-D program. I have noted that even though the Federal Court of Appeal has ordered that such benefits be granted on more than the basis of disability alone, and that other factors, such as age, education and objective real world criteria must be taken into account, the so-called "real world" elements tend to be put on the back burner in light of medical evidence showing unequivocal severity of disability, e.g. lab reports, MRI's, etc. (which again is contrary to much common law in this area). One of my clients that had a leg amputated was said to be able to do "sedentary" work. At age 54, with a grade nine education, I was unsure what type of sedentary would he would be able to find. He finally was approved at the appeals stage. This has been the reality with CPP internally, and then lately, at some of the Review Tribunals, and even in a recent slew of Pension Appeals Board decisions. One has to be considered unable to work in any substantially gainful employment to qualify.
The Disability Tax Credit (DTC) is also tough to get, depending on the type of disability a person has. While the DTC does not rely on data excluding one's capacity to work, it takes a strictly functional definition of disability, whereby in practice, those with enumerated physical restrictions, such as walking, speaking, seeing, or hearing, are favoured, while those with less clear but invisible impairments have greater difficulty getting this benefit. More than 70% of persons on ODSP are receiving it due to a so-called invisible disability, whether that is mental health disability, intellectual disability, brain injury, or learning disability, and about half the remainder have physical disabilities that are not likely to meet the DTC criteria due to their episodic nature or the fact they do not fall under any clear criteria, e.g. chronic pain syndrome. I have successfully won appeals for persons seeking the DTC for "invisible" disabilities in the past, but such persons have such a degree of handicap that they are not only incapable of working, but frequently unable to care for themselves.
The Caledon Institute would give a Basic Income to those that qualify for BOTH the DTC and CPP-D, theoretically leaving the balance of persons with disabilities on ODSP. This all looks good. Let us assume that a federal government adopts this Basic Income approach. While it will provide more than ODSP, recipients will still live significantly below any poverty line, as they would be treated like senior citizens that are eligible for the GIS. They get a maximum of $14,000 a year, well below the $20,000 a year to meet the poverty line. But regardless, let us assume, they got more than that, and they can live okay on it. I already stated how the trend to uploading and downloading and offloading has started and has only sped up with abandon in the past few years, how nobody seems to want to be the first payer of income support for persons with disabilities.
Under such a plan, we are risking the Ontario government under the present or even a new constellation seeing this as an opportunity to offload "persons with disabilities". They may see this as an opportunity to save money by believing they no longer have to pay "extra" to Ontarians that have disabilities, and can get away with putting the balance of them on Ontario Works. After all, not meeting the federal criteria of being unable to do substantially gainful employment means that one can work, right? There is no LEGAL obligation on the part of Ontario to keep its ODSP program, given the federal Liberals dumping the Canada Assistance Plan Act several years ago. Any right wing government may view this as an opportunity to out do Mike Harris and do a real dump this time.
Do not think this won't ever happen. All we have to do is look south of us to the U.S. Many of us who thought the wacky Tea Party gang was a disorganized rump of angry people are now convinced that such right wing directionless thinking is actually in style and quite popular. Go to any newspaper website and read the comments section of any article that deals with social issues. People north of the U.S. border think with their wallets and think tax cuts are good, and any tax or fee is "bad", regardless of what services the taxes fund. The province's own Auditor General as much as accused the majority of people getting the dietary supplement as getting it through fraud, and that there are "overpayments in the billions" that must be put under immediate control, and subsequently he commented on the number of people receiving Ontario Works for two years or more.
Madeleine Meilleur does not want to meet with any community groups; one of the Coalitions I belong to has asked many times only to be told she was too busy. Some of our colleagues have met with her political staff, and of course, none of us are getting any answers as to what is going on, or what is being planned. The Put Food in the Budget campaign has been turned down completely because we are in a massive deficit position. There is always money to pay for $3,000 a day consultants, high priced hospital bureaucrats and huge expense accounts, but no money to feed the poor or to at least give all Ontarians an equal opportunity to take what Ontario offers.
I am not trying to frighten anybody, but we have to stand up to this attitude, which I describe at best as apathy and at worst, an actual conspiracy to attack the poor once again with yet another Mike Harris like attack. In economic recession, the poor have to wait for relief. In economic good times, the poor have to wait for relief. When do we stop waiting and start seeing the same benefits as other persons in Ontario, and be given to tools to utilize the wonderful resources this province otherwise has to offer?
Your thoughts?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
NOW THAT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ARE OVER, WHAT NOW?
I have spoken to many people during the most recent municipal election. Many of them told me they did not feel it was worthwhile voting, as the politicians would do nothing for them. I find out where they live, and I learn that not many of their neighbours vote either. Yet these are the very people whose needs are neglected at election time. According to the Hamilton Spectator, low income voters are less likely to vote. Political wannabes know this, so they focus their campaigns in vote rich neighbourhoods, where people are most likely to vote: seniors, homeowners, business owners, middle and upper income, etc.
During this election, I worked hard to try to convince people not to vote for politicians simply trying to get in on a promise to cut taxes. Wealthy individuals would never be happy, in my opinion, until they paid next to no taxes on any of their income or assets, yet they still expect the best of civil society to develop around them, e.g. low crime, good schools, good hospitals. I stated unequivocally that I could not care less about taxes, just the quality of services we are receiving and how our tax dollars are spent.
Unfortunately, Rob Ford, known in many of Toronto's circles as a "bull in a china shop" got elected on an anti-tax, anti-government and anti-establishment platform. What always bothers me about these elections is that voters do not choose to educate themselves on their candidates, and ask these same candidates the right questions. After Rob Ford's victory was declared on CTV in Toronto, his supporters were interviewed where they likened him to an "ordinary man". In fact, Ford is not an average man and does not have a clue how the average person in Toronto lives. He was born into a wealthy family headed by his father Doug Ford Sr., who also served as a Member of Provincial Parliament, and between he and his brother Doug (Jr), they inherited the family printing business, which was already a successful company when they took it over.
His platform, which was almost exclusively based on "ending the gravy train at city hall" as he referred to it, won him many supporters, many of whom believe there is lots of "fat" to cut in any government budget. Ford campaigned on cutting taxes, without cutting services, something I find a tad impossible, if you might ask. His claims were challenged by his opponents. When Ford was confronted on what specifically he would cut to reduce taxes, he was incoherent and could only come up with examples, such as cutting out free Metro passes for city councillors, no more $12,000 goodbye parties, and so forth. The specifics proposed would not even come near what he feels he could save in four years in costs.
In terms of staffing, he wanted to promote a strong customer service platform, returning calls within a specific frame of time or always having a human being to speak to, etc. which all sounds great, but when Ford later states he will only allow the refilling of half the positions left vacant due to retirement or other causes, the math shows there would be less staff available to return calls in a specified time, and less staff to manage the phone lines to provide a "live person". His customer service declaration runs counter to his idea of cutting staff. Further, from which departments will staff be cut from? To try to argue he can cut taxes and spending without affecting services is a fool's game.
The reason I chose to provide Ford's campaign as an example of optics in politics, and how far from reality these things are, is to also illustrate why some voters are not voting, or perhaps spoiling their ballots. I am not a voter that would be persuaded to vote differently, if I were given information about Ford's personal life and controversies, which were well publicized during the election. I don't care if he was ever arrested for a DUI, or was ever accused of domestic violence, or whatever the opposition has tried to use to dissuade people from voting for him. In my view, all political leaders have something hiding in their closets. What I am more inclined to support or not support is whether or not that politician is eager to work with all of a city, not just those that voted for him.
My views take me to Niagara as well, where I unfortunately have to live, until I can afford to move out of this cesspool of 1950's antiquated thinking and endless reliance on industries that are rapidly moving out of not only Niagara, but perhaps Canada as well. This dream was so much alive that even somebody that works at General Motors got elected, likely at least in part because of that reason. I would prefer to see my region forget about bolstering General Motors up above all other possible ways to keep and to turn our economy around. Has anybody ever heard of a place like GM KNOWINGLY hiring anybody with a disability? Of course not ... which in part is why Niagara has such a huge volume of ODSP recipients and an increasing number of applicants, not surprisingly many of whom are former factory workers -- our region not recognizing the environmental, health and other hazards faced by these workers, as well as the general false economy that was present in the 1980's when the number of GM workers was at its peak, how grocery stores, rental housing, car sales, etc. were all priced to what GM workers could afford and not the whole community, esp. if you were not one of the fortunate ones to have a job there.
Niagara's political representation has to work to represent all of us, not just those that drive a car, or work at General Motors. Niagara Region has to respond to the needs of all of its residents, whether they get their living from a wealthy business and live off the dividends, or if they are long term welfare recipients. Broad based considerations are best at the municipal level, e.g. better transit, improved streamlining for business regulations and reduced "red tape", taxation set to encourage environmentally friendly behaviour, intensification of development, and greater public input into the political processes. A single regional office needs to be set up where all by-laws for each municipality are streamlined and funneled through that one office, allowing for one person to be a point person for any business setting up anywhere in the region.
Politicians also need to be willingly educated on the needs of a diversity of the population they govern. One individual phoned my office shortly before the election in an attempt to get my support for his candidacy in my ward. He admitted he knew nothing about transit policy or where improvements need to be made. The best way these people can be educated is to be forced to do without their car for a whole month, getting around the city or region using available forms of public transit or taxi, and only then they will realize where the deficits lie. It is too easy for those that drive to not consider the needs and realities of those that don't. It is too easy for those that have a large, fancy $500,000 home with a swimming pool and paid housekeeper, to recognize the realities of those that do not have these privileges.
Of course, I admire any individual that sticks their neck out to run for any level of politics, as today, politics has become more of a contact sport, with politicians and candidates becoming the target of the electorate's wrath and anger about almost everything that is wrong in their lives. This is why I was not too thrilled when people bashed Rob Ford about his so-called "skeletons" in his closet, as I couldn't care less. But if Ford is trying to get into power to take away valued services from me that I pay for, for the sake of saving me a few dollars a year off my taxes, it then raises my interest and likelihood that I would not be supporting him.
Those around me telling me they did not vote are usually the ones that continue to complain about buses not being on time, about a city hall clerk being rude to them, about a by-law officer ignoring their concerns, etc. These things are what elections are about. I made transit into an election issue here, and several candidates did campaign on this issue, both at the local and regional level. There were many others that also worked on this, as well as other important issues. Now that the election is over, our jobs don't end as voters. We need to remind these newly elected or re-elected politicians about what they campaigned on, as well as what concerns us the most.
I am concerned not just about transit, but about jobs for the transit to take us to, and they must be jobs people can make a career of, not just "survival jobs". A region that is founded primarily on the lower paid service sector is a region that is not going to grow, and its tax base is going to shrink, and people will leave ... Niagara has complained for so long about keeping young people in the region after they finish their education, and efforts in the past four years have not resolved much of this. I am not only seeing young people leave, but people my age, who are sick and tired of the loss of jobs, and lack of recognition for their own talents by whatever local employers that we have left.
The school board elections were an interesting campaign, as a lot of the issues were based on school closures and declining enrollment. The school board trustees cannot do anything about the declining enrollment. The declining enrollment originates in a different sphere than their sphere of control. With less and less young people staying in Niagara, that means less people are hooking up and procreating here in Niagara and therefore, there are less children to supply the schools with work in this area. The natural consequence of this is to close or amalgamate schools. However, some trustees did have some positive suggestions to counter school closures by viewing it from a perspective of having smaller schools, smaller classrooms and a more specialized curriculum. I voted for these trustee candidates, and one of them as far as I know did get elected.
Unfortunately, there were some individuals elected that do not have a grasp on many of the issues, and could not give a damn about learning about them. I can identify a few of them in Niagara, and wonder why people think the way they do. One person said, "this guy is going to cut our water bills down". I told him I highly doubt that he or anybody else on council can do a damn thing about our water bills, but did he read about anything else any of these candidates were campaigning on? He said no. As some people say, "people get the government they deserve".
Most voters did not vote for Rob Ford because of his platform, but they voted for him because in general, they were either voting against something else or someone else, or they were supporting the "underdog" syndrome. Even the Toronto Sun scoffed at many elements of Ford's platform, although they backed the man himself. Despite Ford's wealth, he identified himself as a kind of outsider in Toronto politics. That idea can attract voters. Unfortunately, people did not take the time to learn about Mr. Ford and his ideas before they marked their ballots. I anticipate he will be faced with many gaffes during his term of office, much like his prior colleague Mel Lastman did. Ford is also going to have to work with a very disparate council, some on the far right, some on the centre right, some in the middle, and some on the left, and even a returning councillor that once led the Manitoba Communist Party - all of whom have an equal mandate to be there as does he.
My city's election was more of the same, with positions filled by people who are similar to those that left them. The Mayor was re-elected, not only because he had scant competition, but because many people do support his agenda and the work he did in the past four years. Many other mayors were turfed in Niagara in favour of somebody else, usually one of the city councillors that chose to run for mayor in their respective city. This further diversifies the make-up of our new regional council, which is sworn in after December 2010. Their first order of business is picking a regional chair, usually from somebody from among them, although the law permits the regional council to choose somebody else.
I think our job as voters is to now follow these people to make sure they do not take us another step backwards on many issues that they reluctantly moved forward on, through only mere baby steps. One thing I do not want is somebody to offer me to save what would amount to $16 on my taxes, but force me to cough up more money out of pocket for taxis, for instance, because they do not recognize transit service as important as roads and bridges. I don't want these people to cost me more. I do not mind paying a small amount more on my property taxes so that we can all be assured of better and improved services.
I just don't want to participate in what seems to be a popular race to the bottom.
During this election, I worked hard to try to convince people not to vote for politicians simply trying to get in on a promise to cut taxes. Wealthy individuals would never be happy, in my opinion, until they paid next to no taxes on any of their income or assets, yet they still expect the best of civil society to develop around them, e.g. low crime, good schools, good hospitals. I stated unequivocally that I could not care less about taxes, just the quality of services we are receiving and how our tax dollars are spent.
Unfortunately, Rob Ford, known in many of Toronto's circles as a "bull in a china shop" got elected on an anti-tax, anti-government and anti-establishment platform. What always bothers me about these elections is that voters do not choose to educate themselves on their candidates, and ask these same candidates the right questions. After Rob Ford's victory was declared on CTV in Toronto, his supporters were interviewed where they likened him to an "ordinary man". In fact, Ford is not an average man and does not have a clue how the average person in Toronto lives. He was born into a wealthy family headed by his father Doug Ford Sr., who also served as a Member of Provincial Parliament, and between he and his brother Doug (Jr), they inherited the family printing business, which was already a successful company when they took it over.
His platform, which was almost exclusively based on "ending the gravy train at city hall" as he referred to it, won him many supporters, many of whom believe there is lots of "fat" to cut in any government budget. Ford campaigned on cutting taxes, without cutting services, something I find a tad impossible, if you might ask. His claims were challenged by his opponents. When Ford was confronted on what specifically he would cut to reduce taxes, he was incoherent and could only come up with examples, such as cutting out free Metro passes for city councillors, no more $12,000 goodbye parties, and so forth. The specifics proposed would not even come near what he feels he could save in four years in costs.
In terms of staffing, he wanted to promote a strong customer service platform, returning calls within a specific frame of time or always having a human being to speak to, etc. which all sounds great, but when Ford later states he will only allow the refilling of half the positions left vacant due to retirement or other causes, the math shows there would be less staff available to return calls in a specified time, and less staff to manage the phone lines to provide a "live person". His customer service declaration runs counter to his idea of cutting staff. Further, from which departments will staff be cut from? To try to argue he can cut taxes and spending without affecting services is a fool's game.
The reason I chose to provide Ford's campaign as an example of optics in politics, and how far from reality these things are, is to also illustrate why some voters are not voting, or perhaps spoiling their ballots. I am not a voter that would be persuaded to vote differently, if I were given information about Ford's personal life and controversies, which were well publicized during the election. I don't care if he was ever arrested for a DUI, or was ever accused of domestic violence, or whatever the opposition has tried to use to dissuade people from voting for him. In my view, all political leaders have something hiding in their closets. What I am more inclined to support or not support is whether or not that politician is eager to work with all of a city, not just those that voted for him.
My views take me to Niagara as well, where I unfortunately have to live, until I can afford to move out of this cesspool of 1950's antiquated thinking and endless reliance on industries that are rapidly moving out of not only Niagara, but perhaps Canada as well. This dream was so much alive that even somebody that works at General Motors got elected, likely at least in part because of that reason. I would prefer to see my region forget about bolstering General Motors up above all other possible ways to keep and to turn our economy around. Has anybody ever heard of a place like GM KNOWINGLY hiring anybody with a disability? Of course not ... which in part is why Niagara has such a huge volume of ODSP recipients and an increasing number of applicants, not surprisingly many of whom are former factory workers -- our region not recognizing the environmental, health and other hazards faced by these workers, as well as the general false economy that was present in the 1980's when the number of GM workers was at its peak, how grocery stores, rental housing, car sales, etc. were all priced to what GM workers could afford and not the whole community, esp. if you were not one of the fortunate ones to have a job there.
Niagara's political representation has to work to represent all of us, not just those that drive a car, or work at General Motors. Niagara Region has to respond to the needs of all of its residents, whether they get their living from a wealthy business and live off the dividends, or if they are long term welfare recipients. Broad based considerations are best at the municipal level, e.g. better transit, improved streamlining for business regulations and reduced "red tape", taxation set to encourage environmentally friendly behaviour, intensification of development, and greater public input into the political processes. A single regional office needs to be set up where all by-laws for each municipality are streamlined and funneled through that one office, allowing for one person to be a point person for any business setting up anywhere in the region.
Politicians also need to be willingly educated on the needs of a diversity of the population they govern. One individual phoned my office shortly before the election in an attempt to get my support for his candidacy in my ward. He admitted he knew nothing about transit policy or where improvements need to be made. The best way these people can be educated is to be forced to do without their car for a whole month, getting around the city or region using available forms of public transit or taxi, and only then they will realize where the deficits lie. It is too easy for those that drive to not consider the needs and realities of those that don't. It is too easy for those that have a large, fancy $500,000 home with a swimming pool and paid housekeeper, to recognize the realities of those that do not have these privileges.
Of course, I admire any individual that sticks their neck out to run for any level of politics, as today, politics has become more of a contact sport, with politicians and candidates becoming the target of the electorate's wrath and anger about almost everything that is wrong in their lives. This is why I was not too thrilled when people bashed Rob Ford about his so-called "skeletons" in his closet, as I couldn't care less. But if Ford is trying to get into power to take away valued services from me that I pay for, for the sake of saving me a few dollars a year off my taxes, it then raises my interest and likelihood that I would not be supporting him.
Those around me telling me they did not vote are usually the ones that continue to complain about buses not being on time, about a city hall clerk being rude to them, about a by-law officer ignoring their concerns, etc. These things are what elections are about. I made transit into an election issue here, and several candidates did campaign on this issue, both at the local and regional level. There were many others that also worked on this, as well as other important issues. Now that the election is over, our jobs don't end as voters. We need to remind these newly elected or re-elected politicians about what they campaigned on, as well as what concerns us the most.
I am concerned not just about transit, but about jobs for the transit to take us to, and they must be jobs people can make a career of, not just "survival jobs". A region that is founded primarily on the lower paid service sector is a region that is not going to grow, and its tax base is going to shrink, and people will leave ... Niagara has complained for so long about keeping young people in the region after they finish their education, and efforts in the past four years have not resolved much of this. I am not only seeing young people leave, but people my age, who are sick and tired of the loss of jobs, and lack of recognition for their own talents by whatever local employers that we have left.
The school board elections were an interesting campaign, as a lot of the issues were based on school closures and declining enrollment. The school board trustees cannot do anything about the declining enrollment. The declining enrollment originates in a different sphere than their sphere of control. With less and less young people staying in Niagara, that means less people are hooking up and procreating here in Niagara and therefore, there are less children to supply the schools with work in this area. The natural consequence of this is to close or amalgamate schools. However, some trustees did have some positive suggestions to counter school closures by viewing it from a perspective of having smaller schools, smaller classrooms and a more specialized curriculum. I voted for these trustee candidates, and one of them as far as I know did get elected.
Unfortunately, there were some individuals elected that do not have a grasp on many of the issues, and could not give a damn about learning about them. I can identify a few of them in Niagara, and wonder why people think the way they do. One person said, "this guy is going to cut our water bills down". I told him I highly doubt that he or anybody else on council can do a damn thing about our water bills, but did he read about anything else any of these candidates were campaigning on? He said no. As some people say, "people get the government they deserve".
Most voters did not vote for Rob Ford because of his platform, but they voted for him because in general, they were either voting against something else or someone else, or they were supporting the "underdog" syndrome. Even the Toronto Sun scoffed at many elements of Ford's platform, although they backed the man himself. Despite Ford's wealth, he identified himself as a kind of outsider in Toronto politics. That idea can attract voters. Unfortunately, people did not take the time to learn about Mr. Ford and his ideas before they marked their ballots. I anticipate he will be faced with many gaffes during his term of office, much like his prior colleague Mel Lastman did. Ford is also going to have to work with a very disparate council, some on the far right, some on the centre right, some in the middle, and some on the left, and even a returning councillor that once led the Manitoba Communist Party - all of whom have an equal mandate to be there as does he.
My city's election was more of the same, with positions filled by people who are similar to those that left them. The Mayor was re-elected, not only because he had scant competition, but because many people do support his agenda and the work he did in the past four years. Many other mayors were turfed in Niagara in favour of somebody else, usually one of the city councillors that chose to run for mayor in their respective city. This further diversifies the make-up of our new regional council, which is sworn in after December 2010. Their first order of business is picking a regional chair, usually from somebody from among them, although the law permits the regional council to choose somebody else.
I think our job as voters is to now follow these people to make sure they do not take us another step backwards on many issues that they reluctantly moved forward on, through only mere baby steps. One thing I do not want is somebody to offer me to save what would amount to $16 on my taxes, but force me to cough up more money out of pocket for taxis, for instance, because they do not recognize transit service as important as roads and bridges. I don't want these people to cost me more. I do not mind paying a small amount more on my property taxes so that we can all be assured of better and improved services.
I just don't want to participate in what seems to be a popular race to the bottom.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
