There are two seemingly very different, but disturbing trends that may impact on the well being of persons with disabilities in Ontario. One involves current policy discussions on the design of disability income supports. The second involves the provincial Progressive Conservative leadership contest and the stated intentions of at least two of the candidates to disband the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. While both issues may appear to be distant and not within the realm of the possible to many people who care about human rights, we better start paying attention to the progress of both initiatives.
With regards to the income support issue, our provincial government in Ontario has promised as part of its poverty-reduction strategy to carry out a review of both the Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Programs. While anti-poverty activists welcome the review, many of us are taking a cautious approach to this. While many of the reviewed items will be to enhance one's "incentives" to join or re-join the paid labour force, poverty-reduction activists are cautious because we are not sure of what this scope would mean and how disability benefits would look in the future, if proposals become adopted.
A federal paper by Richard August, who is a policy analyst from Saskatchewan, cites a proposal that leaves many advocates in Ontario concerned. The paper, which can be found at the Caledon Institute of Social Policy website, raises the spectre of "passive disability benefits" versus something that the author contends would place conditionality to its receipt. While August does support taking disability supports outside the welfare system, which is a point many people in Ontario's disability advocacy community do support, the concept of "conditionality" in his paper leaves this path to be less clear. The reference to the term "passive" would imply that receipt of disability benefits on the condition of entitlement and eligibility alone would hint the obligations on the part of the recipient should be increased.
A clear read of this policy paper which is more than thirty pages in length leaves the reader concerned that if this proposal were to come to light, there were be greater conditionality on the part of persons with disabilities to find and keep a job, and that one's income supports would be measured by the degree to which "outside supports", such as assistive devices, personal care attendants and other related disability related needs are required. For those of us with experience in the mental health field, we know this would exclude most persons with mental health diagnoses, leaving them to live on what very little income supports that may be left for them. At the same time as imposing conditionality, August does not impose similar obligations on the employers who more often than not shirk their responsibilities in hiring and paying good wages to persons with disabilities. The assumptions raised in this paper assume that if "barriers" imposed by social assistance regulations alone were removed, that all persons with disabilities that want to work, will find jobs.
Further, benefits themselves would be restructured where income supports and disability supports would be separate benefits and measured based on need, as opposed to membership in the "disability" category. While this may make sense for some types of disabilities, there are many "disability related costs" that are more hidden and pervasive that such a policy would not cover. For example, for people who do not drive, their costs for most basic goods and services are much higher than for those that do. For persons with "invisible" disabilities, the types of counseling and training supports required are not covered under provincial medicare plans and need to be paid for out of pocket. For some persons, it is imperative that certain supports and expenses be covered to enable labour force participation to any extent. For example, I am presently challenging the whole notion that it depends on where one lives, if somebody on ODSP can access dentures, orthotics, braces, etc. as opposed to need. It is possible such a reformed vision of disability supports might remove this form of geographic discrimination, but then again, will it limit for all what supports can be covered?
Further, what would the author of such a paper feel is an adequate income to cover basic non-disability related needs, such as housing, food, normal travel, clothing, etc.? Even this author seemed to want to tie a subsidized housing benefit to the disability program, which I have frequently pointed out in other entries in this blog would work against labour market participation, as well as penalize those who have family members move in and out of the home. While the author did say there appears to be a dichotomy between the issues of adequacy and "incentives" to work, he has not addressed this issue very well either. If you create more "incentives" to work by reducing benefits, this is not going to make more jobs available to those whose ability to participate in the labour market is limited. All this does is create greater financial distress for people who have no other source of income than disability income supports.
Until we get employers willing to hire people with disabilities in ALL levels of employment within their organizations and pay them the same as they would a non-disabled counterpart doing the same job, this is not going to work. Reports are as high as 90% of persons with mental health issues and vision loss are unemployed and at its best, maybe 50% for some other disability groups. For those employers that do hire persons with disabilities, their skills, education and prior work experience are not recognized and it is assumed that such employees are only capable of doing low-skilled, repetitive work. This is in spite of the fact more and more persons with disabilities are gaining a higher education, and even among them, there continues to remain a high rate of reliance on social assistance.
I sat downtown at a fast food take out station near the hub of our downtown, where many persons with disabilities meet and obtain coffee after their daily activities draw to an end. Among this group, I have a man trained in forensic psychology, a man with a degree in social work, an engineer, a woman trained as a teacher and another, an early childhood educator. Virtually all of them are on ODSP and unable to secure any work, let alone work in their fields. Is it really a good thing to tell these people that their incomes will now drop to OW levels to give them more "incentive" to find low paying work? To me, all this does is enhance the low wage labour force and allow abusive employers to continue to operate with impunity. At the same time, it is denying society the skills these people would otherwise offer in more appropriate occupations, which would usually pay enough to get them out of poverty -- let alone off assistance. To me, forcing people into low wage labour does nothing to counter poverty.
The second issue is related to the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Many people are not aware that there is currently serious debate about scrapping both the Commission and the Tribunal and forcing these types of issues to be heard in a regular courtroom. While people who are not usually the type who would be subject to human rights abuses would not see this as a problem, regular courts are inaccessible to the vast majority of those who would file human rights complaints. Every annual report from the commission identified that the vast majority of complaints are filed by persons with disabilities and in most of those cases, the issue involves employment. Other cases creeping up the ladder involve services, including government mandated services, such as education, transportation and access to certain kinds of benefits.
Human rights tribunals are specialized and now empowered under Bill 107 to provide certain equitable relief in meritorious cases. You do not need to be represented by a lawyer to go to the Human Rights Tribunal. A licensed paralegal with experience in this field can do just as well, and some articulate persons themselves would be able to manage the Tribunal on their own as its procedures are more simpler and straight forward than a court, which would often require multiple discoveries, etc. Going to court would always invariably involve hiring a lawyer, most of whom ask for $2,000 to $5,000 upfront for this type of case and at the end it may cost between $40,000 to $60,000 to take the matter to trial. Legal Aid has enough difficulty paying for certificates to cover criminal cases and certain family law cases, and does not cover these types of cases at all. Almost all the human rights cases my office has handled over the past few years involve a "plaintiff" that is unable to pay these kinds of fees up front or any fees at all.
The reason why some interests are even discussing this measure is because employers, landlords and other interests are getting tired of getting whacked with human rights complaints and the orders that come with it. Many of these respondents want to continue to discriminate with impunity and not suffer the consequences of their actions. They pick straw man arguments, such as the debate around Ezra Levant's defence against a claim filed against him at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (which was dismissed in Levant's favour by the way). They say human rights commissions interfere with free speech. First, neither our provincial Commission or Tribunal have the power to decide on issues of free speech, nor do either have the authority to penalize a writer or publication for being "politically incorrect" - even blasphemous in their tones to protected classes of people.
Human Rights Tribunals in Ontario rule on acts of discrimination, as well as discriminatory policies that are placed intentionally or unintentionally that keep people from protected classes from having equal access to valued goods and resources, such as a job, a place to live, a membership in an association, a service, etc. To take these matters of access to a regular court would remove the balance of power between the applicant and respondent to the point that very few claims will be filed, due to costs and lack of resources. This would be just an invitation for all employers, landlords and others to discriminate with impunity, while policy makers for the former issue will continue to cut access to income and other resources on the presumption people can simply find work in the "free market".
If you don't believe this is a real possibility, both Randy Hillier and Tim, Hudak, leadership candidates for the provincial Progressive Coinservative party have announced this in their platforms. Unfortunately, many of their supporters are drawn to promises like this - the same ilk among the public that cheered when welfare benefits were dropped by 22% in 1995, leaving many people homeless and destitute. Please read Hudak's latest announcement where he promises to scrap this easier method to access justice for legitimate human rights complainants. The Code has provisions within it for Tribunals to screen out frivolous, vexatious and other minor complaints in the public interest and the Rules of Practice for the Tribunal are being drawn up to permit these types of considerations, just as the Commission had when it was in charge of accepting and screening complaints.
The fear that I have is that Dalton McGuinty was stupid enough to introduce the harmonized sales tax (HST) at a time when Ontario has plunged into a major recession. Over 67% of persons polled oppose this tax, and both the PC's and the NDP are adamantly taking this matter to the public and hoping to gain electorally by this opposition. Even though it is not clear to those opposed that it WAS the federal Conservatives imposing this change on Ontario, led by the PC's own former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, too many voters in Ontario will move to the PC's over this issue. I know for a fact that if the PC's did get to power, they will eventually impose the HST anyways, so it would be unwise to change your vote just because of that issue. But I fear that many voters will ignore the issue of scrapping the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal of Ontario, thinking they would never face these circumstances until it is too late ... I would recommend that voters in PC ridings that are concerned about this to write to their PC MPPs expressing YOUR personal opposition to this policy of scrapping access to human rights protections. Further, if this is kept up, significantly and personally, I would sooner vote in McGuinty (holding my nose while I do it mind you) for another four year term if it meant maintaining human rights protections for people with disabilities in Ontario.
Another issue that sort of floated below the radar of publicity is the 75% reduction of medical benefits paid for by insurance companies in the event of a car accident. Instead of a policy limit of $100,000 per claim, most claims will now be subject to a $25,000 cap. Again, this is another issue that most people don't pay any attention to until they need the help. The types of rehabilitation services paid for by insurance are not otherwise covered by OHIP. The government took chiropractic, physiotherapy, etc. out of its billable schedule a few years ago, as well it never included psychotherapy ... and anybody seeking psychotherapy even without an accident knows that costs for this range from $85 - $180 per hour, depending on the provider. To me, this is just another way to further impoverish another part of the population and push them into low paying, unstable work ..
Your thoughts?.
Source:
http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/763ENG%2Epdf
Showing posts with label poverty-reduction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty-reduction. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
A POVERTY-REDUCTION PLAN THAT ISN'T...
The federal budget was what I predicted it to be.
A mish mash of handouts to big corporations, tax cuts, as well as billions of dollars in spending on so-called infrastructure. There was some promise of reform to EI, which it seems fewer and fewer people get each year, but this came up short whereby people are essentially getting nearly what they got ten years ago from EI and the same stringent criteria continues on. In my view, this budget does not put one more meal on anybody's table or another penny in anybody's pocket, other than those who already do okay.
I learned one so-called bright light yesterday as I watched Prime Minister Stephen Harper with his full set of teeth, sans blue sweater and hair greyer than it was before Christmas ... side by side with Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty, appearing skinnier and geekier than he ever was, both announcing new funds for better GO Train service in the Metrolynx boundaries, which of course do not go as far as Niagara.
Henceforth, when I attempted last year to get some answers as to why the GO Train is not even being considered for Niagara, the answers were sort of what I expected. First, you need to have a strong transit infrastructure, as well as convenient parking spaces for GO users. If you lived in Welland, for instance, and didn't drive, a GO Train service leaving Niagara Falls or St. Catharines would be useless to you. How are you going to get to the GO station? Even if the powers that be insisted on putting GO service here, they would defeat its purpose and not take a single car off the road, as there will still be too many of them, zinging from all points of the region to get to the GO station. This still does not change the fact that Niagara is more expensive to live in because having a car and driver's license is still your sole ticket to citizenship.
Poverty activists want to focus on the "housing" announcements. As I stated before, I see no point in making housing a social service. Housing is a necessary commodity, much like food, clothing and clean air. Unfortunately, "housing" in the eyes of many of these people comes attached to social workers that want to control the lives of more people who end up living in this "housing". To me, the less control you put into somebody's life, the better quality of life they have, but then I never have the final say in these things.
Further, others cry for "subsidized" housing or rent-geared-to-income housing. I have tried, but have been unsuccessful, in getting these folks to tell me how this takes people out of poverty. As one fellow blogger under the name of co-opcracy writes, working is counterproductive if one is living in subsidized housing and receiving some type of benefit, such as social assistance or even ODSP. First, ODSP chops your net earnings in half from the very first dollar and then "housing" increases the rent to a point of an additional clawback of thirty five cents on every dollar. Once the earnings are grossed up at the end of a year, even more money is lost. The intelligent and prudent thing to do when in this situation is to stay at home and eat your bonbons.
Further, because subsidies are calculated at far below the maximum "shelter" allowance given for social assistance and ODSP incomes, one would receive far less benefits from social assistance or ODSP than they would if they were housed in the free market. This means one's income would continuously remain under the so-called "poverty line". While housing costs are lower, this does not stop other costs such as food, clothing, transportation, telephone and other costs from skyrocketing. How subsidized housing reduces poverty has always been a trouble spot for me, possibly because of my background as a policy analyst as well as lived experience.
Thinking from the centre is not mediocre for sure. I get attacked from both the left and the right for my views, instead of either/or. I ask questions, but don't get answers. I own my own home, but still I am flat broke. What help is there for me? Certainly, me, my family and thousands of other homeowners in the same boat are not going to sell and move to some unit where they will be under the thumb of some crazy bureaucracy. People need to be as independent as possible, as well as free to advance their circumstances, or else poverty will become a permanent fixture in our society -- bringing even potentially middle-class families down with it.
I would tell the government to save the billions of dollars they would otherwise spend to build units of this type, but instead use it to increase the money in the pockets of individuals and families, so that people actually have choices. Right now, the low-income contingent of our society has no choices. They are told to live as their social worker tells them to, which is to never make a mistake ... therefore, never learn from them. They are told to live within their means, but are never given the means to live. They are told to "get a job", but employers are not told to hire such persons or to pay the people they have decently. As usual, society wants the poor to play a single handed tango, while the other partner can watch and criticize. How can we as a society possibly value people who have been so disadvantaged that we have to instinctively reach out and control their lives, as opposed to giving them choices and opportunities ... yes, some of these folks will fail, but then again -- many of us who have never been in this situation have also failed, many of us miserably.
How many so-called "normal" people have bankruptcies on their record? How many so-called "normal" people can't seem to ever lose weight? What about all those successful professionals that turn to drugs and alcohol to deal with the stress of it all? What about so-called "normal" people who drive a car one day and forget to do the all-important shoulder check and get into a horrible motor vehicle accident? How many "normal" people are smokers? How about the typical friend of ours that always seems to "pick" abusive partners? The rest of us herein do not have strangers telling us what we should be spending our money on, whether or not we should be driving a car, or whether we can manage our own bank accounts. So why are we allowed to pass judgment on those less fortunate than we are? Are we trying to block the way for the poor from becoming less poor, and perhaps, grabbing a bit of dignity while they're at it?
To me, there is maximum dignity in having choices and opportunities. Those of us who have had these things take them for granted. We "assume" that everybody else also has these things, or had them at one time. Then, we bash them for making "bad choices" or "failing to take advantage of opportunities" (even though they were likely never given any). This is not a leftist rant here. I have a legal practice full of people from all walks of life, some of whom were very advantaged and cultured, others that cannot understand what life would be like for them if they could make their own basic choices. The latter have had the system make choices for them all their lives: they were told where to live, had their money spent for them, what to wear and who to be friends with ... never being allowed to choose is tantamount to imprisonment.
I grew up in a rough kind of way. As a young adult, just before securing my post-secondary education and so-called empowerment as a professional person, I knew two things. One, people must have the right to make choices, even bad choices. Two, people have the right to have access to opportunities to advance themselves and improve their quality of life. I got into a lot of trouble for my beliefs. Many social work types tried to downplay my ideas and tell me to be more "realistic" and insist a certain portion of the population continue to be spoon-fed (while the social worker types continued to get good pay cheques for doing so).
When somebody is living on ODSP and in subsidized housing, they do not have the opportunity to advance themselves and improve their financial situation. Their efforts become like a hamster on a spinning wheel, whereby they work harder and harder but end up in the same place. For every dollar they earn, they lose just as much. People in "housing programs" have even less choices, as many of these programs disallow overnight guests, alcohol use, earning money from a home-based business, etc. I've seen people evicted from so-called "mental health housing" for stopping their own medications. This leaves people with no choice. When you can only make the "right" choice, you cannot make ANY choices.
When you take away the choices of people, you take away their dignity. You also reduce the value that society will have of that person. When people feel we have to make decisions for others for whatever reason, we are not valuing that person's own opinion, own tastes or own desires, nor are we allowing that person to fully develop as a mature human being. When we don't value somebody in this way, these folks DO feel it. They feel it when they have to go to the food bank to get their groceries. They feel it when somebody tells them where they have to live and what they can do and can't do when they live there. They feel it when nobody appears concerned about their lack of opportunities and options.
I meet people who want to move out of subsidized housing all the time. This is very difficult to do. Several relatives of my husband were living in subsidized housing twenty-five years ago when I met him and despite marriage, children growing up, etc., they continue to live that way today, as do their children. Enforced poverty breeds enforced poverty. This provincial government promises to "break the cycle" in one breath and even names its poverty reduction plan the same thing, while at the same time, wants to entrap more people ... this makes no sense to me. Open the doors, I want to say ... and make employers open them too.
Today, the employment standards development draft went to public review. This is from one of the committees I sit on, except with the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario ... where for the better part of a year, three dozen people worked hard to put together a set of standards we will be expecting of employers, spanning between one and five years from now, with respect to the hiring, retention, training and accommodations for persons with disabilities. To me, the standards don't go far enough, but we were working within a certain regulatory framework ... a framework that has to fit within the province's business model as well as reach the goal of bringing more qualified persons with disabilities into the paid labour force.
I am hoping that folks reading this will review the proposed standard on its website and send their input to the stated body on how our standard can be improved to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and get more of them into the workforce. The standard can be found by clicking here to the website. Your input must be given by April 15, 2009, in any of the given ways provided by the webmaster.
While access to employment and business opportunities will help improve the outcomes for people with disabilities, we also need to focus on bringing them out of poverty. Poverty is the killer of the soul. It is punishment for a crime one never committed. It kills any initiative one might have even had before they became poor. Both a focused effort on reducing and eventually eliminating poverty through the development of opportunity and increased access to meaningful choices in improving one's well being and quality of life, is what is needed. This would envelope both the needs of persons that can and want to work, as well as those that cannot.
We have to defeat the poverty industry, the set of organizations, leaders and spokespersons, that make a living or gain personal notoriety on the backs of the poor. These are the people that run the food banks, the homeless shelters, the "housing" programs, vouchers, consumer/survivor drop-in centres, etc. without considering that the people they are "helping" should learn how to fish some day and be given the tools and the right to do so. If this means some of the people in the poverty industry lose their jobs, so be it ... if one were an effective leader in a sense, this would not be a worry for them whatsoever.
I am very concerned that some of these organizations are now asking for government money. Should taxpayers be funding food banks, or should they be financing programs that allow people to choose and purchase their own food? Should taxpayers be funding homeless shelters and "housing programs" or should we be funding initiatives that help put money into people's pockets to the point they can reasonably choose where and how to live (within reason, of course ... not everybody's going to move to Forest Hill or Bridal Path).
What is really needed when the day is done are ideas on how to make this happen, not how to bolster the status quo, which we all know has failed us miserably. Your thoughts?
A mish mash of handouts to big corporations, tax cuts, as well as billions of dollars in spending on so-called infrastructure. There was some promise of reform to EI, which it seems fewer and fewer people get each year, but this came up short whereby people are essentially getting nearly what they got ten years ago from EI and the same stringent criteria continues on. In my view, this budget does not put one more meal on anybody's table or another penny in anybody's pocket, other than those who already do okay.
I learned one so-called bright light yesterday as I watched Prime Minister Stephen Harper with his full set of teeth, sans blue sweater and hair greyer than it was before Christmas ... side by side with Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty, appearing skinnier and geekier than he ever was, both announcing new funds for better GO Train service in the Metrolynx boundaries, which of course do not go as far as Niagara.
Henceforth, when I attempted last year to get some answers as to why the GO Train is not even being considered for Niagara, the answers were sort of what I expected. First, you need to have a strong transit infrastructure, as well as convenient parking spaces for GO users. If you lived in Welland, for instance, and didn't drive, a GO Train service leaving Niagara Falls or St. Catharines would be useless to you. How are you going to get to the GO station? Even if the powers that be insisted on putting GO service here, they would defeat its purpose and not take a single car off the road, as there will still be too many of them, zinging from all points of the region to get to the GO station. This still does not change the fact that Niagara is more expensive to live in because having a car and driver's license is still your sole ticket to citizenship.
Poverty activists want to focus on the "housing" announcements. As I stated before, I see no point in making housing a social service. Housing is a necessary commodity, much like food, clothing and clean air. Unfortunately, "housing" in the eyes of many of these people comes attached to social workers that want to control the lives of more people who end up living in this "housing". To me, the less control you put into somebody's life, the better quality of life they have, but then I never have the final say in these things.
Further, others cry for "subsidized" housing or rent-geared-to-income housing. I have tried, but have been unsuccessful, in getting these folks to tell me how this takes people out of poverty. As one fellow blogger under the name of co-opcracy writes, working is counterproductive if one is living in subsidized housing and receiving some type of benefit, such as social assistance or even ODSP. First, ODSP chops your net earnings in half from the very first dollar and then "housing" increases the rent to a point of an additional clawback of thirty five cents on every dollar. Once the earnings are grossed up at the end of a year, even more money is lost. The intelligent and prudent thing to do when in this situation is to stay at home and eat your bonbons.
Further, because subsidies are calculated at far below the maximum "shelter" allowance given for social assistance and ODSP incomes, one would receive far less benefits from social assistance or ODSP than they would if they were housed in the free market. This means one's income would continuously remain under the so-called "poverty line". While housing costs are lower, this does not stop other costs such as food, clothing, transportation, telephone and other costs from skyrocketing. How subsidized housing reduces poverty has always been a trouble spot for me, possibly because of my background as a policy analyst as well as lived experience.
Thinking from the centre is not mediocre for sure. I get attacked from both the left and the right for my views, instead of either/or. I ask questions, but don't get answers. I own my own home, but still I am flat broke. What help is there for me? Certainly, me, my family and thousands of other homeowners in the same boat are not going to sell and move to some unit where they will be under the thumb of some crazy bureaucracy. People need to be as independent as possible, as well as free to advance their circumstances, or else poverty will become a permanent fixture in our society -- bringing even potentially middle-class families down with it.
I would tell the government to save the billions of dollars they would otherwise spend to build units of this type, but instead use it to increase the money in the pockets of individuals and families, so that people actually have choices. Right now, the low-income contingent of our society has no choices. They are told to live as their social worker tells them to, which is to never make a mistake ... therefore, never learn from them. They are told to live within their means, but are never given the means to live. They are told to "get a job", but employers are not told to hire such persons or to pay the people they have decently. As usual, society wants the poor to play a single handed tango, while the other partner can watch and criticize. How can we as a society possibly value people who have been so disadvantaged that we have to instinctively reach out and control their lives, as opposed to giving them choices and opportunities ... yes, some of these folks will fail, but then again -- many of us who have never been in this situation have also failed, many of us miserably.
How many so-called "normal" people have bankruptcies on their record? How many so-called "normal" people can't seem to ever lose weight? What about all those successful professionals that turn to drugs and alcohol to deal with the stress of it all? What about so-called "normal" people who drive a car one day and forget to do the all-important shoulder check and get into a horrible motor vehicle accident? How many "normal" people are smokers? How about the typical friend of ours that always seems to "pick" abusive partners? The rest of us herein do not have strangers telling us what we should be spending our money on, whether or not we should be driving a car, or whether we can manage our own bank accounts. So why are we allowed to pass judgment on those less fortunate than we are? Are we trying to block the way for the poor from becoming less poor, and perhaps, grabbing a bit of dignity while they're at it?
To me, there is maximum dignity in having choices and opportunities. Those of us who have had these things take them for granted. We "assume" that everybody else also has these things, or had them at one time. Then, we bash them for making "bad choices" or "failing to take advantage of opportunities" (even though they were likely never given any). This is not a leftist rant here. I have a legal practice full of people from all walks of life, some of whom were very advantaged and cultured, others that cannot understand what life would be like for them if they could make their own basic choices. The latter have had the system make choices for them all their lives: they were told where to live, had their money spent for them, what to wear and who to be friends with ... never being allowed to choose is tantamount to imprisonment.
I grew up in a rough kind of way. As a young adult, just before securing my post-secondary education and so-called empowerment as a professional person, I knew two things. One, people must have the right to make choices, even bad choices. Two, people have the right to have access to opportunities to advance themselves and improve their quality of life. I got into a lot of trouble for my beliefs. Many social work types tried to downplay my ideas and tell me to be more "realistic" and insist a certain portion of the population continue to be spoon-fed (while the social worker types continued to get good pay cheques for doing so).
When somebody is living on ODSP and in subsidized housing, they do not have the opportunity to advance themselves and improve their financial situation. Their efforts become like a hamster on a spinning wheel, whereby they work harder and harder but end up in the same place. For every dollar they earn, they lose just as much. People in "housing programs" have even less choices, as many of these programs disallow overnight guests, alcohol use, earning money from a home-based business, etc. I've seen people evicted from so-called "mental health housing" for stopping their own medications. This leaves people with no choice. When you can only make the "right" choice, you cannot make ANY choices.
When you take away the choices of people, you take away their dignity. You also reduce the value that society will have of that person. When people feel we have to make decisions for others for whatever reason, we are not valuing that person's own opinion, own tastes or own desires, nor are we allowing that person to fully develop as a mature human being. When we don't value somebody in this way, these folks DO feel it. They feel it when they have to go to the food bank to get their groceries. They feel it when somebody tells them where they have to live and what they can do and can't do when they live there. They feel it when nobody appears concerned about their lack of opportunities and options.
I meet people who want to move out of subsidized housing all the time. This is very difficult to do. Several relatives of my husband were living in subsidized housing twenty-five years ago when I met him and despite marriage, children growing up, etc., they continue to live that way today, as do their children. Enforced poverty breeds enforced poverty. This provincial government promises to "break the cycle" in one breath and even names its poverty reduction plan the same thing, while at the same time, wants to entrap more people ... this makes no sense to me. Open the doors, I want to say ... and make employers open them too.
Today, the employment standards development draft went to public review. This is from one of the committees I sit on, except with the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario ... where for the better part of a year, three dozen people worked hard to put together a set of standards we will be expecting of employers, spanning between one and five years from now, with respect to the hiring, retention, training and accommodations for persons with disabilities. To me, the standards don't go far enough, but we were working within a certain regulatory framework ... a framework that has to fit within the province's business model as well as reach the goal of bringing more qualified persons with disabilities into the paid labour force.
I am hoping that folks reading this will review the proposed standard on its website and send their input to the stated body on how our standard can be improved to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and get more of them into the workforce. The standard can be found by clicking here to the website. Your input must be given by April 15, 2009, in any of the given ways provided by the webmaster.
While access to employment and business opportunities will help improve the outcomes for people with disabilities, we also need to focus on bringing them out of poverty. Poverty is the killer of the soul. It is punishment for a crime one never committed. It kills any initiative one might have even had before they became poor. Both a focused effort on reducing and eventually eliminating poverty through the development of opportunity and increased access to meaningful choices in improving one's well being and quality of life, is what is needed. This would envelope both the needs of persons that can and want to work, as well as those that cannot.
We have to defeat the poverty industry, the set of organizations, leaders and spokespersons, that make a living or gain personal notoriety on the backs of the poor. These are the people that run the food banks, the homeless shelters, the "housing" programs, vouchers, consumer/survivor drop-in centres, etc. without considering that the people they are "helping" should learn how to fish some day and be given the tools and the right to do so. If this means some of the people in the poverty industry lose their jobs, so be it ... if one were an effective leader in a sense, this would not be a worry for them whatsoever.
I am very concerned that some of these organizations are now asking for government money. Should taxpayers be funding food banks, or should they be financing programs that allow people to choose and purchase their own food? Should taxpayers be funding homeless shelters and "housing programs" or should we be funding initiatives that help put money into people's pockets to the point they can reasonably choose where and how to live (within reason, of course ... not everybody's going to move to Forest Hill or Bridal Path).
What is really needed when the day is done are ideas on how to make this happen, not how to bolster the status quo, which we all know has failed us miserably. Your thoughts?
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A FEDERAL BUDGET TO DO OR DIE BY ...
This Tuesday is going to be an historic event, much like last Tuesday was for the installation of the forty-forth U.S. President Barack Obama. However, how historic this event becomes is the choice of the federal Conservatives.
The doors to the federal Parliament are being unlocked tomorrow after the dust had settled for the better part of six weeks. I suspect somebody went in there during the weekend to dust the shelves, the oak wood and other parts of the building to lift that abandoned building smell before the chickens come home to roost.
To remind Canadians who have been hiding under logs or staying away from the television or newspapers or even the Internet for the past six weeks or more, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, at the very risk of losing a confidence vote over a particularly partisan economic statement, sought to hide behind the skirts of the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until tomorrow.
It is not like nothing is happening behind the scenes. The attack ads are out painting the prospective coalition government in waiting as an undemocratic exercise that defeats the results of the vote that Canadians voted for. Of course, anybody that understands basic Grade Ten politics understands that this is not true and once again, fuels fire on the brains of the largely uneducated public.
The federal government, as well as both Opposition Parties, have hit the road over the past several weeks to consult with Canadians, business, unions and others, to determine what should go in this oh-so-important budget that's coming up. I was part of the NDP's consultation by default because I happen to live in an NDP riding and two associates of mine work in that MP's constituency office. I also sent my written remarks to the government and the Liberals as well.
My remarks would not surprise anybody here, but would involve careful infrastructure investments including new transit systems (using Canadian companies to manufacture buses and rail cars), more help for persons with disabilities for whom there is "always a recession" and to aid in the development of a diversified economy that would meet the needs for more Canadians and not just those losing jobs in factories and oil fields.
At the riding's town hall meeting, Jack Layton came down to attend with our MP, Malcolm Allen. Malcolm Allen is the only non-Conservative MP we have in the Niagara Region. Although I do like Rick Dykstra and Rob Nicholson as well (and do not know Dean Allison well enough to have an opinion one way or another about him), Niagara needed a different voice. From that meeting, it appeared that Malcolm Allen is providing a very different approach.
People came from all over Niagara and beyond. Some came from as far away as Whitby and Burlington to talk about job losses and the failure of their governing MPs to accept petitions that thousands of people in their respective ridings have signed. People are worried about housing, health care, the NHS system changes (which Jack Layton seemed to be aware of), increased child and general poverty, the rights of persons with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians, as well as transportation issues. These things are all impacts of huge job losses, accompanied by the failure of governments to turn things around in a careful manner.
Unfortunately, the way things are with politicians and policy makers who have no clue about what goes on at the ground level is that things sway to either extreme. Governments can invest billions and billions of dollars into job training, infrastructure and other programs, only to put us all into a major deficit without any real economic gains. Or governments can focus on tax cuts for upper middle classes and wealthy classes, actually believing these folks will spend more money locally if they kept more of their own. Even billionnaires won't buy more local necessities than they have to ... and why would somebody buy yet one more expensive car, when they already have five in their garage?
Job training dollars can be useful if targeted correctly and if they are done inclusively and in concert with improving the employment environment for disadvantaged workers, so that they can actually get hired in jobs that respect their abilities, education and career aspirations instead of spinning them on to one call centre or another, or to train them to be Wal-Mart greeters. Even among those jobs, there are only so many people required and yes, these jobs should be for those that are less skilled and educated. However, that is NOT what is happening ... as I can point to endless examples of people placed in policy positions that have no clue what they are doing, or well educated people referred to low-paying, low-aspirational work.
One example of poor policy advice that was given was a few years ago, a group of disability organizations wanted to review the federal disability tax credit and make recommendations about how to make that credit more accessible to persons with certain types of disabilities, such as mental health problems. I work in the legal field in administrative law and I can tell you, I have read their recommendations and final report, including their lack of impact on any changes whatsoever for mental health issues, that people with mental health issues will be struggling for years to come, unless their disabilities are so severe, they cannot function independently. That is why you don't have poorly educated "consumers" representing consumer interests in these policy discussions.
Up until now, I suppose this didn't matter anyways for the majority of consumers with mental health issues, as most were on disability allowances and did not have much taxable income to benefit from anyways. However, the concept of making this credit into a refundable one, or tying this into eligibility for the Registered Disability Savings Program, especially with the bonds and grants part of it (as most of these people don't have family to contribute to this type of account either), makes access to additional resources more desirable, but still out of reach.
Of course, this program was a Conservative initiative, whereby they only know of the families that might have approached them about concerns about the livelihoods of their children (most of whom have severe physical or intellectual disabilities) and voila, they solved the problems of poverty for all persons with disabilities with a single pen stroke! In reality, I believe this will benefit approximately 5 - 10% of my clients with disabilities, including those only seeking the grants and bonds portion. Many of them are older than 49 years old, and thus no longer eligible to receive such grants and bonds that would otherwise be available to those unable to contribute. That is why organizations supporting poverty-reduction for persons with disabilities should only acknowledge this, but not focus too closely on it. Continue to fight for help for ALL low-income persons with disabilities, instead of falling to divide and conquer which seems to work well.
Many people who support this type of government have never seen want or need. Most grew up in relatively middle class households with supportive parents who likely covered at least part of the costs of their university education; many even gave them a car and taught them how to drive shortly after their sixteenth birthday. They have no clue there are many Canadians who grew up without this advantage, or who later lost this support for whatever reason (e. g. parents having died or became ill themselves). They have no idea that telling this latter group to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is useless, as they have no bootstraps to pull themselves up with.
Unfortunately, the only federal support the Conservatives see for persons with mental health issues is by continuing to push for the assumption that most are homeless, incompetent and unable to manage their lives, so they funded five pilot projects to sort out what needs to be done for homeless persons with mental health issues. I know many people who have been diagnosed with mental health problems, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Ninety-nine percent of this group have never been homeless, even though some are forced to live on low incomes.
The few I know who have lost their homes have done so when they had no money, not because of their mental health problems. Many others have lost their homes as well and never have had any mental health issues. And besides that, what is this government going to do to FORCE employers to hire people with mental health problems and pay them a decent wage?
The whole premise behind the Conservative budgetary choices is that those who fall into desperation are NOT like us; there is something WRONG with them, not the economy, not employers that refuse to hire qualified persons with disabilities, not with social assistance rates, and certainly not with families that have frequently abandoned them. This is supposed to reassure us, but however, it does nothing to reassure the people that these things happen to despite doing everything in their lives right: getting an education, getting married, trying to work or start a business, etc. Unfortunately, this is what the current economy is about ... creating desperate situations for people who never expected to find themselves there.
There are lots of pundit views as to what is going to happen with the budget. Some say there will be sufficient infrastructure and social spending to satisfy the Liberals, but there will also be large tax cuts for people who already have a significant disposable income. As usual, there will likely be nothing more for persons with disabilities, nothing for low-income workers, nothing for laid off workers (who cannot survive on existing EI rates, even if they miraculously do qualify). Ignatieff is not playing his hand until the actual budget is laid out. Layton said even if the budget includes everything they want, they don't trust the Conservatives to follow through with it.
My concern is the Conservatives' obsession with tax cuts. Unemployed workers do not pay taxes. Persons with disabilities living on low incomes do not pay taxes. Low income pensioners do not pay taxes. Low-wage workers pay only a small amount of taxes, so if any tax cuts are given to these people, they wouldn't even notice. Such tax cuts do not pay the mortgage for these people, nor do such tax cuts pay the grocery or utility bills. Desperate people will remain desperate and continue to have little or no disposable income.
The truth is that the economy needs people who have disposable income AND a margin of need for additional products and services delivered locally. To give somebody earning $90,000 a year additional disposable income when they already have five cars, a six-bedroom house, a cottage in Muskoka and a regular gym and golf club membership is not going to add to their local spending. However, if somebody earning $25,000 a year gets an additional $5,000 a year, this additional $5,000 WILL be spent locally.
The fact that Conservatives want to deny and hide behind is they do not understand the true plight of low income Canadians. These people are NOT driving a car, NOT going to the movies, NOT eating out (even at McDonald's), NOT buying clothing, NOT sending their kids on school trips and NOT even buying things for their homes, because almost every last penny goes to rent or mortgage, utilities and food. Many rely on food banks to make their income stretch further. This does NOT help the economy. As more and more Canadians plunge into this situation, it is certainly not going to help by throwing more money at people who already have what they need and more.
In fact, any deep tax cuts at this point will likely plunge us further into a deficit and when times turn around again, of course the government will once again focus on shrinking the size of the deficit, which means only service cuts to those who can least afford to endure them. That means, among other things: cuts to medicare, cuts to EI, cuts to housing programs, cuts to job training programs, increases to tuition fees and student loans, etc. A decent lifestyle will become even less accessible to those of us among the disadvantaged and among future generations. At this point, I would not even count on having an old age pension if you are under 55 years old today. Retirement will become an opportunity only for the wealthy. The rest of us work until we die.
All of this is because we have managers and policy makers in government and politics that have no clue what it is like to want for anything. They do not even consult with other levels of governments on the rare occasion they do come up with some policy idea. Different programs often operate at cross-purposes to one another and not one single government has ever attempted to disentangle them. It works in the interests of those who work in these programs to keep people in them, thus keep the poor from ever becoming non-poor. This keeps them happy enough not to strike against the powers that be who have hired them.
To me, the greatest offender against the rights of persons with disabilities, for example, is the government and often, politicians that have no clue what it means to have a disability. Politicians in Niagara Region, for example, only see "disability" as being in a wheelchair, scooter or walker, as nobody else is granted relief from exorbitant transportation costs in Niagara. The provincial government has listed only 42 conditions that they feel merit a "special dietary allowance", when in fact almost EVERY medical condition has impacts through diet. They just don't want to admit that most people on any kind of assistance can't even afford a basic diet. And as I said above, the Disability Tax Credit definition leaves out many people for whom disability related issues carry costs to them, but do not qualify under their stringent criteria.
On one hand, government wants to say that people with disabilities are able and should remain independent and when one tries to assert that independence and get a job or start a business, but are prevented from doing so because of the prejudice of employers, they are then denied many kinds of disability benefits, as these OTHER benefits require people to be almost unable to manage their own funds (e.g. require a trustee), unable to live independently (e.g. live in a group home or high intensive supportive housing), unable to bathe/carry out person hygiene (e.g. need home care for personal assistance), etc.
To me, if employers do not want to hire people with disabilities then TAX THEM HEAVILY so that this money can be directed to be paid ON TOP of disability pensions and not clawed back, so that people forced to live on social assistance can at least eat and live decently, until such day a sympathetic employer will hire them. The number of disability programs should be reduced, but paid out more generously. My fear is that by the federal government using the Disability Tax Credit criteria, it may one day require all provinces to harmonize their definitions with theirs and guess what's going to happen? Exactly what they would never anticipate ... more people on the streets, more people in desperate poverty.
I just hope the federal government at least tries to put out a budget that will help low-income Canadians and persons with disabilities and bring them hope ... which is so foreign on this side of the border, just so soon after the inauguration of a wonderful man down south who made history as the first African-American President. I think we would be fooled to believe that Americans were asking for change desperately from the Bush administration to such a point they moved behind Obama in great numbers, that my fellow Canadians don't think the same way.
In other words, if Stephen Harper doesn't want to move with the mood for change, he may as well step aside and let somebody else take the reins. More and more Canadians are sick and tired of being left behind and for any politician that wants to remain in power, it is best they pay close attention in the next year or so.
Your thoughts?
The doors to the federal Parliament are being unlocked tomorrow after the dust had settled for the better part of six weeks. I suspect somebody went in there during the weekend to dust the shelves, the oak wood and other parts of the building to lift that abandoned building smell before the chickens come home to roost.
To remind Canadians who have been hiding under logs or staying away from the television or newspapers or even the Internet for the past six weeks or more, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, at the very risk of losing a confidence vote over a particularly partisan economic statement, sought to hide behind the skirts of the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until tomorrow.
It is not like nothing is happening behind the scenes. The attack ads are out painting the prospective coalition government in waiting as an undemocratic exercise that defeats the results of the vote that Canadians voted for. Of course, anybody that understands basic Grade Ten politics understands that this is not true and once again, fuels fire on the brains of the largely uneducated public.
The federal government, as well as both Opposition Parties, have hit the road over the past several weeks to consult with Canadians, business, unions and others, to determine what should go in this oh-so-important budget that's coming up. I was part of the NDP's consultation by default because I happen to live in an NDP riding and two associates of mine work in that MP's constituency office. I also sent my written remarks to the government and the Liberals as well.
My remarks would not surprise anybody here, but would involve careful infrastructure investments including new transit systems (using Canadian companies to manufacture buses and rail cars), more help for persons with disabilities for whom there is "always a recession" and to aid in the development of a diversified economy that would meet the needs for more Canadians and not just those losing jobs in factories and oil fields.
At the riding's town hall meeting, Jack Layton came down to attend with our MP, Malcolm Allen. Malcolm Allen is the only non-Conservative MP we have in the Niagara Region. Although I do like Rick Dykstra and Rob Nicholson as well (and do not know Dean Allison well enough to have an opinion one way or another about him), Niagara needed a different voice. From that meeting, it appeared that Malcolm Allen is providing a very different approach.
People came from all over Niagara and beyond. Some came from as far away as Whitby and Burlington to talk about job losses and the failure of their governing MPs to accept petitions that thousands of people in their respective ridings have signed. People are worried about housing, health care, the NHS system changes (which Jack Layton seemed to be aware of), increased child and general poverty, the rights of persons with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians, as well as transportation issues. These things are all impacts of huge job losses, accompanied by the failure of governments to turn things around in a careful manner.
Unfortunately, the way things are with politicians and policy makers who have no clue about what goes on at the ground level is that things sway to either extreme. Governments can invest billions and billions of dollars into job training, infrastructure and other programs, only to put us all into a major deficit without any real economic gains. Or governments can focus on tax cuts for upper middle classes and wealthy classes, actually believing these folks will spend more money locally if they kept more of their own. Even billionnaires won't buy more local necessities than they have to ... and why would somebody buy yet one more expensive car, when they already have five in their garage?
Job training dollars can be useful if targeted correctly and if they are done inclusively and in concert with improving the employment environment for disadvantaged workers, so that they can actually get hired in jobs that respect their abilities, education and career aspirations instead of spinning them on to one call centre or another, or to train them to be Wal-Mart greeters. Even among those jobs, there are only so many people required and yes, these jobs should be for those that are less skilled and educated. However, that is NOT what is happening ... as I can point to endless examples of people placed in policy positions that have no clue what they are doing, or well educated people referred to low-paying, low-aspirational work.
One example of poor policy advice that was given was a few years ago, a group of disability organizations wanted to review the federal disability tax credit and make recommendations about how to make that credit more accessible to persons with certain types of disabilities, such as mental health problems. I work in the legal field in administrative law and I can tell you, I have read their recommendations and final report, including their lack of impact on any changes whatsoever for mental health issues, that people with mental health issues will be struggling for years to come, unless their disabilities are so severe, they cannot function independently. That is why you don't have poorly educated "consumers" representing consumer interests in these policy discussions.
Up until now, I suppose this didn't matter anyways for the majority of consumers with mental health issues, as most were on disability allowances and did not have much taxable income to benefit from anyways. However, the concept of making this credit into a refundable one, or tying this into eligibility for the Registered Disability Savings Program, especially with the bonds and grants part of it (as most of these people don't have family to contribute to this type of account either), makes access to additional resources more desirable, but still out of reach.
Of course, this program was a Conservative initiative, whereby they only know of the families that might have approached them about concerns about the livelihoods of their children (most of whom have severe physical or intellectual disabilities) and voila, they solved the problems of poverty for all persons with disabilities with a single pen stroke! In reality, I believe this will benefit approximately 5 - 10% of my clients with disabilities, including those only seeking the grants and bonds portion. Many of them are older than 49 years old, and thus no longer eligible to receive such grants and bonds that would otherwise be available to those unable to contribute. That is why organizations supporting poverty-reduction for persons with disabilities should only acknowledge this, but not focus too closely on it. Continue to fight for help for ALL low-income persons with disabilities, instead of falling to divide and conquer which seems to work well.
Many people who support this type of government have never seen want or need. Most grew up in relatively middle class households with supportive parents who likely covered at least part of the costs of their university education; many even gave them a car and taught them how to drive shortly after their sixteenth birthday. They have no clue there are many Canadians who grew up without this advantage, or who later lost this support for whatever reason (e. g. parents having died or became ill themselves). They have no idea that telling this latter group to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is useless, as they have no bootstraps to pull themselves up with.
Unfortunately, the only federal support the Conservatives see for persons with mental health issues is by continuing to push for the assumption that most are homeless, incompetent and unable to manage their lives, so they funded five pilot projects to sort out what needs to be done for homeless persons with mental health issues. I know many people who have been diagnosed with mental health problems, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Ninety-nine percent of this group have never been homeless, even though some are forced to live on low incomes.
The few I know who have lost their homes have done so when they had no money, not because of their mental health problems. Many others have lost their homes as well and never have had any mental health issues. And besides that, what is this government going to do to FORCE employers to hire people with mental health problems and pay them a decent wage?
The whole premise behind the Conservative budgetary choices is that those who fall into desperation are NOT like us; there is something WRONG with them, not the economy, not employers that refuse to hire qualified persons with disabilities, not with social assistance rates, and certainly not with families that have frequently abandoned them. This is supposed to reassure us, but however, it does nothing to reassure the people that these things happen to despite doing everything in their lives right: getting an education, getting married, trying to work or start a business, etc. Unfortunately, this is what the current economy is about ... creating desperate situations for people who never expected to find themselves there.
There are lots of pundit views as to what is going to happen with the budget. Some say there will be sufficient infrastructure and social spending to satisfy the Liberals, but there will also be large tax cuts for people who already have a significant disposable income. As usual, there will likely be nothing more for persons with disabilities, nothing for low-income workers, nothing for laid off workers (who cannot survive on existing EI rates, even if they miraculously do qualify). Ignatieff is not playing his hand until the actual budget is laid out. Layton said even if the budget includes everything they want, they don't trust the Conservatives to follow through with it.
My concern is the Conservatives' obsession with tax cuts. Unemployed workers do not pay taxes. Persons with disabilities living on low incomes do not pay taxes. Low income pensioners do not pay taxes. Low-wage workers pay only a small amount of taxes, so if any tax cuts are given to these people, they wouldn't even notice. Such tax cuts do not pay the mortgage for these people, nor do such tax cuts pay the grocery or utility bills. Desperate people will remain desperate and continue to have little or no disposable income.
The truth is that the economy needs people who have disposable income AND a margin of need for additional products and services delivered locally. To give somebody earning $90,000 a year additional disposable income when they already have five cars, a six-bedroom house, a cottage in Muskoka and a regular gym and golf club membership is not going to add to their local spending. However, if somebody earning $25,000 a year gets an additional $5,000 a year, this additional $5,000 WILL be spent locally.
The fact that Conservatives want to deny and hide behind is they do not understand the true plight of low income Canadians. These people are NOT driving a car, NOT going to the movies, NOT eating out (even at McDonald's), NOT buying clothing, NOT sending their kids on school trips and NOT even buying things for their homes, because almost every last penny goes to rent or mortgage, utilities and food. Many rely on food banks to make their income stretch further. This does NOT help the economy. As more and more Canadians plunge into this situation, it is certainly not going to help by throwing more money at people who already have what they need and more.
In fact, any deep tax cuts at this point will likely plunge us further into a deficit and when times turn around again, of course the government will once again focus on shrinking the size of the deficit, which means only service cuts to those who can least afford to endure them. That means, among other things: cuts to medicare, cuts to EI, cuts to housing programs, cuts to job training programs, increases to tuition fees and student loans, etc. A decent lifestyle will become even less accessible to those of us among the disadvantaged and among future generations. At this point, I would not even count on having an old age pension if you are under 55 years old today. Retirement will become an opportunity only for the wealthy. The rest of us work until we die.
All of this is because we have managers and policy makers in government and politics that have no clue what it is like to want for anything. They do not even consult with other levels of governments on the rare occasion they do come up with some policy idea. Different programs often operate at cross-purposes to one another and not one single government has ever attempted to disentangle them. It works in the interests of those who work in these programs to keep people in them, thus keep the poor from ever becoming non-poor. This keeps them happy enough not to strike against the powers that be who have hired them.
To me, the greatest offender against the rights of persons with disabilities, for example, is the government and often, politicians that have no clue what it means to have a disability. Politicians in Niagara Region, for example, only see "disability" as being in a wheelchair, scooter or walker, as nobody else is granted relief from exorbitant transportation costs in Niagara. The provincial government has listed only 42 conditions that they feel merit a "special dietary allowance", when in fact almost EVERY medical condition has impacts through diet. They just don't want to admit that most people on any kind of assistance can't even afford a basic diet. And as I said above, the Disability Tax Credit definition leaves out many people for whom disability related issues carry costs to them, but do not qualify under their stringent criteria.
On one hand, government wants to say that people with disabilities are able and should remain independent and when one tries to assert that independence and get a job or start a business, but are prevented from doing so because of the prejudice of employers, they are then denied many kinds of disability benefits, as these OTHER benefits require people to be almost unable to manage their own funds (e.g. require a trustee), unable to live independently (e.g. live in a group home or high intensive supportive housing), unable to bathe/carry out person hygiene (e.g. need home care for personal assistance), etc.
To me, if employers do not want to hire people with disabilities then TAX THEM HEAVILY so that this money can be directed to be paid ON TOP of disability pensions and not clawed back, so that people forced to live on social assistance can at least eat and live decently, until such day a sympathetic employer will hire them. The number of disability programs should be reduced, but paid out more generously. My fear is that by the federal government using the Disability Tax Credit criteria, it may one day require all provinces to harmonize their definitions with theirs and guess what's going to happen? Exactly what they would never anticipate ... more people on the streets, more people in desperate poverty.
I just hope the federal government at least tries to put out a budget that will help low-income Canadians and persons with disabilities and bring them hope ... which is so foreign on this side of the border, just so soon after the inauguration of a wonderful man down south who made history as the first African-American President. I think we would be fooled to believe that Americans were asking for change desperately from the Bush administration to such a point they moved behind Obama in great numbers, that my fellow Canadians don't think the same way.
In other words, if Stephen Harper doesn't want to move with the mood for change, he may as well step aside and let somebody else take the reins. More and more Canadians are sick and tired of being left behind and for any politician that wants to remain in power, it is best they pay close attention in the next year or so.
Your thoughts?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
POVERTY IS BAD FOR BUSINESS!!!
Every once in awhile, the new Right through its various associations and accomplices chooses to attack government for the costs it generates. Their only solution it appears is to lower taxes, ease the burden on the upper classes to "encourage" investment. However, these same organizations are not present when it comes to how the government is going to cover the added costs of poverty that seems to almost always follow huge tax decreases for the well-heeled. The well-heeled just turn to a 'law and order' agenda and wonder why people are "going crazy" all of a sudden and how society is no longer safe. People even in small towns are interviewed and they tell the media how they used to keep their doors unlocked and can longer do so.
In my own community, while the rate of homicide and violent crimes seem to be decreasing, the rate for property-related and fraud-related crimes seems to be on the rise. We are constantly hearing about how debit machines are getting "rigged" to copy valuable information from people's magnetic strip on their cards and somehow high tech keypads pick up the P.I.N. numbers that are associated with the cards. The new fraudsters then go home to make copies of the unaware victims' debt cards and clean out their bank accounts. Home repair "contractors" go door to door to sign up unsuspecting customers who will give the "repair person" a down-payment who will then disappear with their money, never to return again to actually carry out the repairs. Telephone "fraudsters" will call and claim to represent a legitimate company or charity and ask for your credit card information to "upgrade" your existing cable, telephone or utility service that you currently subscribe to. Others with less cunning and less resources hang out on street corners to ask for spare change to take a bus or to buy a coffee. These incidents have risen geometrically over the past 20 years; however, our taxpayer federations continue to cry out how much we pay in taxes and how many people are "abusing" social services. They fail to see the connections I see with the rising rate of non-violent crimes involving property and fraud.
I talk to many of the business owners I know well in the downtown of my community. They feel bad about it, but they say if it were not for the drug dealers in the area, they'd probably be out of business. Legitimate consumers are decreasing in population, while those who are obtaining their profits through crime are increasing, it seems. We all complain that "somebody" needs to do something to "crack down" on fraud and so-called illegitimate claims for legitimate avenues, such as insurance cases, welfare benefits, worker's compensation, etc. At the same time, I am seeing a sharp increase in the number of legitimate claimants appearing at my office who have been unfairly robbed of their claims and are now losing their homes, businesses and families because of this. Where does this end? I know members of the general public have no clue what a legitimate claimant has to go through in order to claim what is legitimately theirs by law. Webpages, discussion groups and public forums are filled to the brim with people that think that "90% or more" of those claiming disability for example are perfectly able to work, but just don't want to. Others advocate that people with disabilities should be paid less because the writers are under the impression that disabled persons are less capable of contributing than a "regular person". Others complain of increased taxes going to "immigrants, welfare fraud and scammers", when in fact none of these people EVER personally experienced what they claim the "others" they speak of either experienced or claimed to be experiencing. The taxpayer's federations want more money to spend on foreign investments, foreign vacations and foreign products, because these particular individuals ALREADY have more than enough to spend on domestic products and services, so they just want to get greedy and get more.
A report called "Growing Gap" has been published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which shows that the top 10% of the income bracket (or those most likely to complain about so-called higher taxes) actually gained more than 16% in terms of real growth of net incomes over the past twenty years. Those in the so-called "middle classes", if there is such a thing anymore, have not gained much, except possibly a net gain of $53 per annum in real money (constant $2005 dollar) over the past twenty years. The lowest income brackets actually lost almost 20% of their real income over the past twenty years (and this is working low-income ... those forced to rely on government transfer programs are argued to have lost more than 30% over the past 20 years). This is not good enough apparently for those that want further taxes shaved off their annual tax bill ... they don't see any connection to how the suffering of the very poor can very well be connected to more taxes in the future for all of us (including the well-heeled that complain the loudest) and less property security.
All one has to do is sit in a bar or a doughnut shop or a drop-in centre to listen to what people are forced to do, the choices they are being forced to make -- one of course can always choose the honest path, but it turns out that if one does so, they will only fall further behind. If you want a clearer idea about how honesty destroys any chances of getting ahead, read "Why is it so tough to get ahead?" by John Stapleton and his associates at the Metcalf Foundation, which can be downloaded from here. People in subsidized housing are shot down the minute they declare earnings in excess of $100 a month; people on social assistance are shot down by 50% for any dollar they earn whatsoever; people whose annual income exceeds $20.000 a year even by a little bit, begin to lose access to subsidized housing and many other child-related benefits. Those that do not want to lose have to cheat to win, thus which is why we have laws to catch the so-called "scammers". Of course, Kimberly Rogers, of Sudbury, Ontario, who "cheated" welfare in order to get an education and get off the system eventually, was convicted of scamming welfare, because she was not permitted to collect welfare AND go to school. A whole inquest and dozens of recommendations later, nothing changed. Our taxpayers' coalitions and uneducated right continue to clamour on for more and deeper cuts, so they can afford two or even three SUVs and Florida vacations, while "other people" starve.
The reality of the matter is that we are ALL paying for poverty and allowing it to continue. The upper classes may not feel it as much, as most of their investments and concerns are not domestic. However, for everybody else, ranging from the barber, the baker and the candlestick-maker, they have all noticed the impact of increased and tolerated poverty in the past twenty years. Why?
The facts:
1. Poor people do not go to movies, rent videos, buy new clothing, buy jewellery, or eat out.
The more poor people there are, the less people there are in a community that is doing all of those things. This affects small business. Wealthy people who are now allowed to pay less taxes are not going to buy MORE domestic products, because they already have what they need. Why would a wealthy family, for example, go out and buy MORE groceries than they need just because they have more 'disposable' income? Those who are earning less, or getting less on their welfare incomes, are not spending as much, because the cost of their housing is crowding out any other income that would normally be used on groceries, clothing, transportation, eating out, etc.
2. Poor people have poorer health outcomes and are subject to higher health care costs.
One statistic that is particularly shocking is that poor people have four times as much chance of becoming diabetic than those of middle and upper income brackets, even when weight is factored in. Complications from diabetes, such as amputations, heart disease, blindness and high blood pressure are at least twice as likely in low-income diabetics than in diabetics from other social classes. This is even after access to medical plans and universal health care in Canada is accounted for. The poor are twice as likely to develop irreversible heart conditions as others. They are more than three times as likely to suffer from nosocomial (or hospital-based) infections than other people and are more likely to be put into nursing homes, where care is less than optimal. Some people have argued this is almost a deliberate strategy to save money, but most of these people do not die right away, but end up costing hundreds of thousands of more dollars to the system -- even the U.S.-based health care system -- than middle and upper class persons do.
3. Poor families are more likely to be a target of child protection services.
How many of you heard of a wealthy family having their children apprehended from them for reasons of supposed neglect? If this happens at all, it is rare. The wealthy have good lawyers and are also able to hide any neglect they might impose if they were prone to this. The statistics also show that 87% of families that have children's aid involved with them on an ongoing basis are low-income or working class families. The poor are more likely to have a child apprehended from them, usually on the basis of 'environmental conditions'. Perhaps, their teachers reported seeing them without a proper winter coat or regularly coming to school without lunches. Explored further, there are always skeletons that can be exposed in ANY family, but wealthy families do not attract this kind of attention. At a cost of $2,300 per month per child, we as taxpayers need to ask good questions about the accountability of the child protection system and whether or not it is being operated on the basis of social class and culture, as opposed to actual signs of abuse and neglect.
4. Poverty breeds crime.
Middle and upper income people believe that welfare is "prone" to abuse and that because of this, tighter controls need to be placed on recipients. Some even advocate food stamps and direct-pay for rental housing (which if studies of these policies were examined would learn that social class becomes caste-like and stratification between classes becomes impossible for most). What happens to people who have little in a society that seems to have plenty is that some of the poor will attempt to acquire what they feel they deserve through illegal or illicit means ,,, people turn to prostitution, drug dealing, small time theft rings, fraud, etc. to supplement their meagre incomes. Who are these people defrauding? You and me. You and I are the people that answer our phones to "charities" asking for our credit card numbers. You and I use "debit machines" where fraudsters are learning more and more sophisticated skills in skimming. You are I are working in the retail business that is becoming more and more subject to shoplifters and outright robberies. You and I are having to lock our doors, install security systems and take taxis home in order to protect ourselves from the 'seedy' side of our population.
While criminals may have a later motive for drug purchases and addiction, they almost always started with a motive of poverty. They have to pay their rent. They have to eat. They have to earn an income. They have to pay child support. Around them are commercials for fancy home renovations, brand new computerized cars, fancy cell phones, computers and other gadgets that "the rest" of society can afford without having to turn to crime. We think nothing of replacing our car every two or three years, replacing a computer every four years and buying new clothes to attend the latest gala function or wedding of a family or friend. People living in poverty cannot do these things. Some of them suffer because they do not want to risk committing a crime; others become less shy about knocking off the nearest variety store to get what they want ... or get engaged in the drug trade. In seedy neighbourhoods, the drug trade is open and available and for young kids that get nothing at home, the opportunity to drive a nice car, wear expensive jewellery and dress in fashionable clothing is too great. What are we doing as a society other than worsening the situation by sending out non-verbal signals that people of low-incomes are somehow less deserving of a modern life?
Mental health is a major loser as well in all this throw for show societal expectations among us. People who live in subsidized housing and CANNOT get ahead because of housing rules are bound to break them. People who cannot get ahead due to stringent treatment of earnings on welfare are bound to break them. Think about it. If you were forced to pay 80% of your income on taxes today, only to pay a bit more as your income goes up ... will you be less likely to claim your extra income? The rate of tax evasion and "cheating" on income taxes outnumbers the number of people who cheat on welfare by 10 to 1, not because welfare recipients are more honest, but because the dogs are on them all the time! Unfortunately, for many -- NOT claiming their income while on welfare or in subsidized housing is probably the only way they will break the cycle of poverty. This certainly needs to be looked at by the government folks assigned to look into poverty, but even doing this is not going to get poor people to spend more or make them healthier.
This is a very complex situation that needs more of an examination than the cursory one that is given today. Unfortunately, it is the food banks, the charities and the homeless shelters, as well as certain public services that benefit from the presence of the poor ... and these organizations need to be dealt with, not put in charge of any anti-poverty strategy. There are staffers of food banks and homeless shelters making $80,000 and above - why would they want to truly see poverty ended? Wouldn't there be a better incentive by government for example to fund people on the basis of poverty-reduction, as opposed to continuation of the same old - same old? I am not saying many of these people do not have a conscience or are not concerned, but their very livelihoods and thus, their financial interests are geared toward the rapid increase of poverty today!
Poverty is bad for business because poor people do not spend. Poverty is bad for business because poor people cost more in terms of health care, corrections, social services and related expenses. Businesses do not benefit from having to pay more taxes to cover the costs of these things. Poverty is bad for business because there will soon be less and less places to safely locate one's business without having to put up with panhandlers and drug dealers outside your front door. Because we ALL know inherently this is true, I am calling on ALL OF YOU to push the government into developing a serious -- and not superficial or politically smooth sounding plan -- to not only reduce, but to eliminate poverty altogether! It should be considered the scourge of a modern society to even accept the presence of poverty amidst our so-called wealth!
Your thoughts?
In my own community, while the rate of homicide and violent crimes seem to be decreasing, the rate for property-related and fraud-related crimes seems to be on the rise. We are constantly hearing about how debit machines are getting "rigged" to copy valuable information from people's magnetic strip on their cards and somehow high tech keypads pick up the P.I.N. numbers that are associated with the cards. The new fraudsters then go home to make copies of the unaware victims' debt cards and clean out their bank accounts. Home repair "contractors" go door to door to sign up unsuspecting customers who will give the "repair person" a down-payment who will then disappear with their money, never to return again to actually carry out the repairs. Telephone "fraudsters" will call and claim to represent a legitimate company or charity and ask for your credit card information to "upgrade" your existing cable, telephone or utility service that you currently subscribe to. Others with less cunning and less resources hang out on street corners to ask for spare change to take a bus or to buy a coffee. These incidents have risen geometrically over the past 20 years; however, our taxpayer federations continue to cry out how much we pay in taxes and how many people are "abusing" social services. They fail to see the connections I see with the rising rate of non-violent crimes involving property and fraud.
I talk to many of the business owners I know well in the downtown of my community. They feel bad about it, but they say if it were not for the drug dealers in the area, they'd probably be out of business. Legitimate consumers are decreasing in population, while those who are obtaining their profits through crime are increasing, it seems. We all complain that "somebody" needs to do something to "crack down" on fraud and so-called illegitimate claims for legitimate avenues, such as insurance cases, welfare benefits, worker's compensation, etc. At the same time, I am seeing a sharp increase in the number of legitimate claimants appearing at my office who have been unfairly robbed of their claims and are now losing their homes, businesses and families because of this. Where does this end? I know members of the general public have no clue what a legitimate claimant has to go through in order to claim what is legitimately theirs by law. Webpages, discussion groups and public forums are filled to the brim with people that think that "90% or more" of those claiming disability for example are perfectly able to work, but just don't want to. Others advocate that people with disabilities should be paid less because the writers are under the impression that disabled persons are less capable of contributing than a "regular person". Others complain of increased taxes going to "immigrants, welfare fraud and scammers", when in fact none of these people EVER personally experienced what they claim the "others" they speak of either experienced or claimed to be experiencing. The taxpayer's federations want more money to spend on foreign investments, foreign vacations and foreign products, because these particular individuals ALREADY have more than enough to spend on domestic products and services, so they just want to get greedy and get more.
A report called "Growing Gap" has been published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which shows that the top 10% of the income bracket (or those most likely to complain about so-called higher taxes) actually gained more than 16% in terms of real growth of net incomes over the past twenty years. Those in the so-called "middle classes", if there is such a thing anymore, have not gained much, except possibly a net gain of $53 per annum in real money (constant $2005 dollar) over the past twenty years. The lowest income brackets actually lost almost 20% of their real income over the past twenty years (and this is working low-income ... those forced to rely on government transfer programs are argued to have lost more than 30% over the past 20 years). This is not good enough apparently for those that want further taxes shaved off their annual tax bill ... they don't see any connection to how the suffering of the very poor can very well be connected to more taxes in the future for all of us (including the well-heeled that complain the loudest) and less property security.
All one has to do is sit in a bar or a doughnut shop or a drop-in centre to listen to what people are forced to do, the choices they are being forced to make -- one of course can always choose the honest path, but it turns out that if one does so, they will only fall further behind. If you want a clearer idea about how honesty destroys any chances of getting ahead, read "Why is it so tough to get ahead?" by John Stapleton and his associates at the Metcalf Foundation, which can be downloaded from here. People in subsidized housing are shot down the minute they declare earnings in excess of $100 a month; people on social assistance are shot down by 50% for any dollar they earn whatsoever; people whose annual income exceeds $20.000 a year even by a little bit, begin to lose access to subsidized housing and many other child-related benefits. Those that do not want to lose have to cheat to win, thus which is why we have laws to catch the so-called "scammers". Of course, Kimberly Rogers, of Sudbury, Ontario, who "cheated" welfare in order to get an education and get off the system eventually, was convicted of scamming welfare, because she was not permitted to collect welfare AND go to school. A whole inquest and dozens of recommendations later, nothing changed. Our taxpayers' coalitions and uneducated right continue to clamour on for more and deeper cuts, so they can afford two or even three SUVs and Florida vacations, while "other people" starve.
The reality of the matter is that we are ALL paying for poverty and allowing it to continue. The upper classes may not feel it as much, as most of their investments and concerns are not domestic. However, for everybody else, ranging from the barber, the baker and the candlestick-maker, they have all noticed the impact of increased and tolerated poverty in the past twenty years. Why?
The facts:
1. Poor people do not go to movies, rent videos, buy new clothing, buy jewellery, or eat out.
The more poor people there are, the less people there are in a community that is doing all of those things. This affects small business. Wealthy people who are now allowed to pay less taxes are not going to buy MORE domestic products, because they already have what they need. Why would a wealthy family, for example, go out and buy MORE groceries than they need just because they have more 'disposable' income? Those who are earning less, or getting less on their welfare incomes, are not spending as much, because the cost of their housing is crowding out any other income that would normally be used on groceries, clothing, transportation, eating out, etc.
2. Poor people have poorer health outcomes and are subject to higher health care costs.
One statistic that is particularly shocking is that poor people have four times as much chance of becoming diabetic than those of middle and upper income brackets, even when weight is factored in. Complications from diabetes, such as amputations, heart disease, blindness and high blood pressure are at least twice as likely in low-income diabetics than in diabetics from other social classes. This is even after access to medical plans and universal health care in Canada is accounted for. The poor are twice as likely to develop irreversible heart conditions as others. They are more than three times as likely to suffer from nosocomial (or hospital-based) infections than other people and are more likely to be put into nursing homes, where care is less than optimal. Some people have argued this is almost a deliberate strategy to save money, but most of these people do not die right away, but end up costing hundreds of thousands of more dollars to the system -- even the U.S.-based health care system -- than middle and upper class persons do.
3. Poor families are more likely to be a target of child protection services.
How many of you heard of a wealthy family having their children apprehended from them for reasons of supposed neglect? If this happens at all, it is rare. The wealthy have good lawyers and are also able to hide any neglect they might impose if they were prone to this. The statistics also show that 87% of families that have children's aid involved with them on an ongoing basis are low-income or working class families. The poor are more likely to have a child apprehended from them, usually on the basis of 'environmental conditions'. Perhaps, their teachers reported seeing them without a proper winter coat or regularly coming to school without lunches. Explored further, there are always skeletons that can be exposed in ANY family, but wealthy families do not attract this kind of attention. At a cost of $2,300 per month per child, we as taxpayers need to ask good questions about the accountability of the child protection system and whether or not it is being operated on the basis of social class and culture, as opposed to actual signs of abuse and neglect.
4. Poverty breeds crime.
Middle and upper income people believe that welfare is "prone" to abuse and that because of this, tighter controls need to be placed on recipients. Some even advocate food stamps and direct-pay for rental housing (which if studies of these policies were examined would learn that social class becomes caste-like and stratification between classes becomes impossible for most). What happens to people who have little in a society that seems to have plenty is that some of the poor will attempt to acquire what they feel they deserve through illegal or illicit means ,,, people turn to prostitution, drug dealing, small time theft rings, fraud, etc. to supplement their meagre incomes. Who are these people defrauding? You and me. You and I are the people that answer our phones to "charities" asking for our credit card numbers. You and I use "debit machines" where fraudsters are learning more and more sophisticated skills in skimming. You are I are working in the retail business that is becoming more and more subject to shoplifters and outright robberies. You and I are having to lock our doors, install security systems and take taxis home in order to protect ourselves from the 'seedy' side of our population.
While criminals may have a later motive for drug purchases and addiction, they almost always started with a motive of poverty. They have to pay their rent. They have to eat. They have to earn an income. They have to pay child support. Around them are commercials for fancy home renovations, brand new computerized cars, fancy cell phones, computers and other gadgets that "the rest" of society can afford without having to turn to crime. We think nothing of replacing our car every two or three years, replacing a computer every four years and buying new clothes to attend the latest gala function or wedding of a family or friend. People living in poverty cannot do these things. Some of them suffer because they do not want to risk committing a crime; others become less shy about knocking off the nearest variety store to get what they want ... or get engaged in the drug trade. In seedy neighbourhoods, the drug trade is open and available and for young kids that get nothing at home, the opportunity to drive a nice car, wear expensive jewellery and dress in fashionable clothing is too great. What are we doing as a society other than worsening the situation by sending out non-verbal signals that people of low-incomes are somehow less deserving of a modern life?
Mental health is a major loser as well in all this throw for show societal expectations among us. People who live in subsidized housing and CANNOT get ahead because of housing rules are bound to break them. People who cannot get ahead due to stringent treatment of earnings on welfare are bound to break them. Think about it. If you were forced to pay 80% of your income on taxes today, only to pay a bit more as your income goes up ... will you be less likely to claim your extra income? The rate of tax evasion and "cheating" on income taxes outnumbers the number of people who cheat on welfare by 10 to 1, not because welfare recipients are more honest, but because the dogs are on them all the time! Unfortunately, for many -- NOT claiming their income while on welfare or in subsidized housing is probably the only way they will break the cycle of poverty. This certainly needs to be looked at by the government folks assigned to look into poverty, but even doing this is not going to get poor people to spend more or make them healthier.
This is a very complex situation that needs more of an examination than the cursory one that is given today. Unfortunately, it is the food banks, the charities and the homeless shelters, as well as certain public services that benefit from the presence of the poor ... and these organizations need to be dealt with, not put in charge of any anti-poverty strategy. There are staffers of food banks and homeless shelters making $80,000 and above - why would they want to truly see poverty ended? Wouldn't there be a better incentive by government for example to fund people on the basis of poverty-reduction, as opposed to continuation of the same old - same old? I am not saying many of these people do not have a conscience or are not concerned, but their very livelihoods and thus, their financial interests are geared toward the rapid increase of poverty today!
Poverty is bad for business because poor people do not spend. Poverty is bad for business because poor people cost more in terms of health care, corrections, social services and related expenses. Businesses do not benefit from having to pay more taxes to cover the costs of these things. Poverty is bad for business because there will soon be less and less places to safely locate one's business without having to put up with panhandlers and drug dealers outside your front door. Because we ALL know inherently this is true, I am calling on ALL OF YOU to push the government into developing a serious -- and not superficial or politically smooth sounding plan -- to not only reduce, but to eliminate poverty altogether! It should be considered the scourge of a modern society to even accept the presence of poverty amidst our so-called wealth!
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
