Things change but they don't

To the Editor ( December 22, 2011 ) - not printed -

Last deep thoughts of the year.

The other day I read the following; “So long as Rome was fighting for political pre-eminence in the ancient world, the division of classes within the state remained in the background or at lest did not cause bloodshed. However, as soon as she became mistress of the world, the power of the aristocracy was assailed by the citizens in general. Their war-cry was a better and more just distribution of property and a more democratic form of government.” These words were written by professor Rostovtzeff in his book on Roman history, published back in 1927.

Avoiding the direct comparisons of the USA to Rome, I still find the situation ironic. We have progressed so far from the days of the Empire, everyone likes to think. Yet here we are as a civilization, seeing that same war-cry again “Just distribution of wealth and more democracy.”

Progress has given us smart phones but it has not solved poverty or injustice.

Think about it.

Tax deferral is no real help

To the editor ( December 17, 2011 )

Tax deferral is no real help.

I usually avoid expressing my opinion about any of our governing officials; I assume they are doing their best at difficult jobs, their mistakes are mostly excusable. But an article in the T&T, Dec 10, about the changes to property tax rules, has me feeling the need to demand that our finance minister Blaine Higgs have his brain examined by a qualified expert in common sense.

A freeze on property taxes increases for seniors; should mean exactly that. But somehow those words can be understood as a deferral of property tax increases, and their related interest payments. These two ideas are NOT the same things.

Thus I think Mr. Higgs has a problem perceiving reality or he is just trying to distort the truth when he said “Our campaign promised we would freeze the tax increase assessments for seigniors and that is exactly what this program is.” This deferral of taxes is not what was wanted or expected. It is no real good for seniors.

This is an example of a short term fix that caucuses long term problems. It may help seniors stay in their houses, but when they sell their property or pass it along to their children, a large bill will have to be paid out of some pocket. “Guess what Billy, your mom died and left you the house, but deferred taxes and interest payments amount to half the value of the property.”

This way of keeping an election promises is rather like saying ‘I will not kick your dog.’ Then once elected, I drop a rock on your dog. There was no kicking involved, so the promise was kept.

This delayed taxation is not a win-win situation. It may look good on paper for the government and the prospect of extra revenue from the interest payments is nice, but it does not protect seniors. As a sort of legal scam to earn money it is fine. But please don’t try to pretend that it is a just fulfillment of a promise.

The only good thing I can see about it is that it is not mandatory. You can ignore it.

Fresh minds for our future

To the editor (December 03, 2011 )

What we need is a new idea.

Albert Einstein said “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Today we are trying to do exactly that; with the most obvious example being the attempt to borrow our way out of debt.

I have said, we need some radical new ideas to solve our problems and I have observed that, no government is seriously considering such ideas. A new round of cutback and a few new taxes will not do it. As the US super-committee looks to trim $1.2 trillion of budget fat, nothing big and bold has been suggested. Well of course no, because they are using the same thinking that caused the problems, they can’t find any answers.

To understand what is going on we need to know a bit about mental frameworks. Everyone has one; it is a structure of values that we use to make sense of life, a meter stick for norms of behavior, and the older we get the more rigid it becomes. Our political leaders and chief civil servants, whether good or bad people, are directed in their patterns of thinking by the frame work they have built up over their careers.

What can be done?

Toss out everyone. All members of parliament, all senators, all upper level civil servants; fire the lot of them. Replace them with kids fresh out of high school. Radical sounding, of course it is, that is the idea.

“But even if they are bright A students, they don’t have any real experience, they can’t possibly run the country.” Is the quickly made objection. However that lack of experience is exactly the quality we need. The youth, who will have to deal with our debt sooner or later, have not accumulated the narrow mental framework that we adults have.

If we gave them the power to act, we might find that they can solve our problems with different thinking. But I admit this idea is mostly wishful thinking. Fear of the unknown will likely keep us voting for the experienced politician who promises change, but then fails to deliver.

So if you Occupiers want some real democratic radical change; my advice is to form a new party for the next federal election and run candidates all under age 22. Put your skills to use and capture the normally non-voting section of society. Fresh minds for our future, elected defenders of the 99%.

Think about it.

Why I fear “real” democracy

To the Editor ( November 18, 2011 )

Why I fear “real” democracy.

There has been a lot of talk recently about how our representative democracy is not performing well. It is not providing justice, transparency, accountability, fairness; it is not acting according to the will of the majority or in the best interests of its citizens. The government is accused of providing favorable treatment to the rich while ignoring the needs of the poor.

A major call from the Occupy movement is for more democracy. But what exactly do they mean? 1. Reforms to election systems; how we elect our representatives and how often we do it. The current system, first past the post elections once every four years, was sensible when it was installed a hundred years ago, but we can do better.

2. More public involvement; people need to have access to information and a forum to voice their thoughts, more critically they need a mechanism, like a referendum, to clearly express their desire on an issue.

If seriously implemented these measures could be very disruptive. They offer the possibility of a ‘tyranny of the majority’ an idea Tocqueville coined back in the mid 1800s. When the government is required to follow the will of the majority it may undertake actions that wise men consider dangerous. Just look at Greece today; if a referendum was held on the question of imposing more austerity measures, the people would vote ‘no’ and thus doom the nation and all Europe to a fate the experts want to avoid.

But this is still not the ‘real’ democracy that worries me; to understand that, we must look to ancient Rome. The citizens there grumbled often at the actions of their officials, but unlike us civilized folks; they frequently got angry and formed a mob. They expressed popular will in very clear terms. They rampaged, often destroying the homes of the officials they were upset with and lynching them. Mob democracy was ugly and usually unstoppable once it got going.

My point is that we should consider the reasonable demands being made by the peaceful Occupy movement, while we can. Because the items they are upset about are systemic, the problems will not just disappear. I expect they will get worse, because no real solutions are being considered by government. If this peaceful movement ends with out any progress, I fear that mob democracy may be the next flavor of protest.

Make some changes today, avoid revolution tomorrow.

There is only one sacred cow

To the Editor ( October 21, 2011 )

There is only one sacred cow.

Some people don’t know why there are protests going on. ( The occupy Wall Street movement ) It is because there is only one sacred cow; all others are just beloved pets. I think that metaphor works very well. But it needs an explanation.

A sacred cow is something you can not kill. In governmental budget terms there is only one item that is untouchable; that is debt service payments. By all the powers of law, order and market stability, thou have no right to tinker with the payments. Everything else in the budget, from health care to entitlement plans for civil servants, are beloved pets that some people don’t want cut to pieces.

The problems with our sacred cow are; 1 that it does no one any noticeable good 2 it is getting larger 3 it gets priority over all other cows.

When the government collects taxes, it is required to pay the sacred cow first. Whatever money is left over then goes to fund all the social programs we enjoy. The normal tax revenue could cover these programs, if we were not servicing the debt. But because we must honor the cow our tax dollars do not cover our social programs.

The first reason people are protesting is a matter of justice. Our tax dollars are going directly to the banks and institutions. They get richer as we get poorer. This is basically a wealth transfer system from the average citizens (the 99%) to the wealthy (1%).

The second reason is a matter of governmental mismanagement. The one thing we should not do as part of our plan to solve our debt problem is; borrow more money. Yet that is exactly what we keep doing. A little cut back here, a tiny tax increase there, and a loan of a few billion more. In New Brunswick the sacred cow is the third largest item in the budget. What will we do if it tops the list?

The third reason is a matter of perception. The debt seems to be of no use to anyone, except the bankers who profit from it. Loans for economic stimulus are fluffy clouds that may or may not bring some benefit. Constant cuts to social services are hard facts that make life difficult for people.

So the unemployed ask; in a world where top executives make millions and bank profits are billions, why must we suffer?

Think about it.

Is violence nessesary ?

To the editor ( August 27, 2011 )

A fact about history we seem to have forgotten.

“Violence never solves anything.” Sure it does. Any reading of history will make it clear that without violence things do not change. Violence is ugly and painful, not something most people want to have any part of, but it is a necessary activity in life.

Standing up to the school yard bully means more than looking him in the eye and saying “You can’t have my lunch money.” Passive resistance is noble in theory, but in reality the bully will take your money if you don’t act to stop him. You have to fight. You have to prove that winning for him is more trouble than its worth.

Unlike the modern notion that we should avoid violence at all costs, some believe we should uphold the older value; that calls on us to talk first while being ready to fight. Backing down or staying quiet is almost always a victory for the other side.

The clearest example is WWII. What would have stopped Hitler if our grandfathers did not stand up and go to war? If they continued to talk and refused to act, would the expansion of Germany have stopped? Violence clearly solved this problem.

The other lessons of history are less well known and often less clearly understood. But I have noticed that every serious social change comes with some violence; public disruptions, riots, property damage, and police brutality. If a movement is quiet, civilized and peruses only the proper channels for change, it is ignored.

I am not saying anything about any particular movement’s goals being good or bad. I am trying to explain a historic truth. With that in mind I would like the reader to look at some of the recent news events, from the riots against austerity measures in Greece and England to the protests over shale gas in New Brunswick.

If a person holds the modern view; that conflict is to be avoided, they will complain and be ignored. If a person holds the older view; that change requires fighting for it, then they will cause disruptions and damage. In the first case the goal can never be achieved, because even a huge number of quiet protesters can be ignored. In the second case, the authorities must take some actions to appease the mob if its numbers grow large enough.

You may call it ugly but it is democracy at its most basic level.

Think about it.

Borrow $ to pay the debt !

To the Editor ( July 23, 2011 )

What do you really know about our debt ?

We all know that our province and our country are in debt, but how many of us know the real details? We often read that our public debt is a problem that needs to be solved. The advice is always “tightening our belts” accepting various combinations of cut backs and tax increases, so the government can spend less on services and have more money to pay down the debt.

That is about as much as most people Iv talked with know about the situation. They do not know exactly how the debt was created or who it is owed to. The assumption is that our government has been spending more than it earns. A look at the Statistics Canada web site can confirm this view. In 2009, NB had a total revenue of $8,978 million and expenses of $9,373 million, thus a deficit of $-395 million. Simple enough, right?

But take a closer look; debt charges amount to $945 million, the third biggest expense for the province. In other words we took in $8,978M and spent $8,428M on actual services for our citizens. The hidden truth, no one seems to notice, is that we are not spending too much on our services and infrastructure. Our regular revenue does cover our regular expenses. Its true for NB and its true for Canada as a whole.

I have looked back a number of years and the pattern is the same. When you negate the debt payments we are actually doing just fine. But in reality most years show a bottom line deficit, this is money that makes the debt grow and thus makes next year’s required debt service charge bigger.

This is a problem because conventional wisdom (not law) requires that we pay the full debt service charge each year, even if we must borrow money to do it. Unlike healthcare we can not cut back on payments to our bankers, unless we want to risk economic suicide.

So can you start to see the picture? A sizable slice of provincial income goes right to debt payments (the yearly interest not the principle) then we must scavenge to cover the actual public services. $8,978M income -$945M debt charge = $8,033M. Unfortunately said services amount to $8,428M, which is more than we have left, so we have to borrow.

This finance dance is done to avoid people realizing that truth I mentioned earlier. Because it would look unreasonable for the government to just borrow money each year to give to the banks, to cover the interest we owe to the banks. The illusion must be created that our government is spending more than it should.

I encourage everyone to look into the situation.

Industrial Responcibility

To the Editor ( June 25 2011 )

Iv been reading about the natural gas industry and their desire to set up shop in NB. A lot of claims have been made that; 1, the process is very safe 2, that contamination of ground water has almost never been proven to be the fault of the gas industry.

The second claim is the most important because it speaks about responsibility. To say “there has never been a legal conviction of a company for contamination water”, is not the same as saying they did not cause such a problem.

Are scientists confident that the process is safe or are they confident that it will be nearly impossible to prove that a gas company is responsible for water contamination?

I have an idea that may help set the minds of citizens at ease. Let’s require the companies to sign a contract with the NB government before they begin work, stating that the company accepts full responsibility and will cover clean up costs of any water or soil contamination, which is not conclusively proven to be from another source. The point is to hold the industry to its claim that the process is safe, and give them no room to sneak away from helping the environment by saying “You can’t prove it’s our fault.”

Think about it.

Back is the way forward

To the Editor ( May 15, 2011 ) - not printed -

A sarcastic answer to the school situation.

Im sure we can cut school budgets by 60%, never mind this small time trimming. Let’s look at being minimal to the max, so we can spend wisely paying more towards our debt.

What do we need for a school? A building that is safe; does not leak or make people sick, has good insulation so we don’t need to run the heat much and lots of windows so we use natural light and less electricity. An all in one gym, cafeteria, auditorium, etc. One class room per grade is fine; we just need to make them really big.

Which brings me to the teachers; we only need one per class. They can each have an assistant, min-wage worker, to handle the extra load. Education specialists can be assigned so one will service five schools in a day per week rotation.

Books are nice but not necessary; this is the internet information age after all. Teachers can assign readings from publicly available text files. The school can be made entirely paperless, with any necessary documents being e-mailed to the student / parent to print at home.

As for art and music, sports and drama, we need to cut the costs down, by making the parents pay directly for the activity their child wants to be involved in. The kids can help with fund raising activities; door to door begging.

We can also cover the cost of school busses by charging each student a monthly pass. The passes should be priced to at lest cover the cost of gas.

I know these ideas seem a bit extreme, so we need one more thing; a catchy motto. “The way into the future is by making our school look like something from the past.” No that’s too long, how about; “Back is the way forward.”

Think about it.

Economic debt dance

To the editor ( April 20, 2011 )

So we are not worried about the debt, oh good, Im much relieved. That was what I was thinking after reading the “Moncton seeks authority to borrow $26M” article of April 14. After hearing so much about deficit and how deep in the financial hole we are, I was reassured by the confident attitude that is just fine for us, as a city, to borrow another few million dollars. Who do we borrow money from anyhow? No one ever seems to say. Then I took a sip of coffee and my brain started working.

The more I get to know about this economic-debt dance the more Im sure that we are doomed, so there is no point in worrying. Basically we are faced with the current situation; If we don’t have enough real tax $ one year to do all the things we need to do, we borrow. That is creating a deficit. The next year we have to pay back what we borrowed plus interest. We are not getting a friendly loan from mom. But if we can’t pay it all off, it stays around and we have to pay interest on it next year, etc. This is how a permanent debt is created. For example; If we borrow 20M$ at a 10% interest, the next year we should be paying back 22M$ But if we had to borrow the money, is it likely we can repay it? Usually we repay some, the interest and a part of the principle from the first loan and borrow some more. Lets say we were able to pay 12M$ so our first debt is down to 10M$ along comes the interest charge and next year we are having to pay 11M$ if we want to be rid of it.

I know this is a bit simplistic but from the research Iv done, it does reflect the way things work. In reality the payments would be stretched out in smaller amounts over a much longer time, so in the end we would not be paying 23M$ for our 20M$ loan, as in the example, but more like 30M$. This is insanity.

All the projects on the table are nice, some are very necessary, but if we keep borrowing under the current system we are just digging a deeper hole. “Moncton’s debt level is around 15% of our annual income.” The article made it seem like a good thing. That is like saying; my ship is not sinking as fast as yours.

We have to start seriously looking at how to make sacrifices. Live totally with in budget or reform the way government borrows money. There are possibilities we can try or we can just keep going down this road until the annual debt service payment is 90% of the government’s budget.

Think about it

Fixing Holes

To the Editor ( March 21, 2011 )

I was inspired after reading J. Donelle’s letter “Fixing the budget problem” March 14. If a real solution is desired serious steps must be taken. If we don’t want to “be in this place” what direction shall we go in? Basically there are two camps of thought to consider. Both are founded on well argued political-economic theory.

Camp A – from the idea that the public and private sectors are NOT the same; business and government are not similar entities they do not have the same goals and so should not be following the same mode of operation. The state should not be run like a business. But why not? Corporations seem to be great models for success (never mind the automakers crash and bank failures of a few years ago)

According to Camp A, the state exists for the safety and welfare of its citizens. All its services aim to provide the best possible standard of living for the greatest number of people. To accomplish this, the state needs income of course. However collecting and spending said income is NOT the prime motive of the state. A business exist to generate wealth for its owners, all other considerations even providing service to its clients are secondary. Camp A theory claims; a state must exist to provide service to its people.

Thus I read B. L. Crowley’s article “Provinces behaving badly” March 15, with interest. The behavior he condemns; NFLD nationalizing AbitibiBowater, is exactly what we may expect to see under the logic of Camp A. The notion of democracy does mean that governments have the right to seize property, or even default on debts, if they think it is in the public interest.

Camp B – comes from the idea that business and government can and should be run according to similar methods. The state should be run like a corporation. In this regard a balanced budget, with surplus if possible, becomes the prime motive of actions. The state must still provide some services but these are seen as problematic, expenses to be cut whenever possible. However the government faces a situation no business ever wants to deal with. Many of the services it provides are impossible to measure in terms of cost – benefit.

According to Camp B theory the size and expenses of government must be reduced, opening the door of privatization. It would be foolish to downsize the government yet expect it to continue covering all current areas of responsibility. So anything that can be sub-contracted or entirely given to corporations should be.

Thus I get to R. Austin’s letter “Casual workers seek respect” March 15, and his worry about the treatment of some civil service workers. Despite the creation of a casual workers union which gave members seniority, new workers were hired without offering the jobs to laid off union members. In many businesses it is common practice to prefer new employees instead of allowing workers to climb the ladder, gaining increased wages and benefits. My point is; this behavior is exactly what we can expect from Camp B. At the extreme such a society would have almost all workers being hired on individual short term contract basis.

Both camps have their attractive and ugly aspects. What we have to ask is; what place do we want to be in 20 years down the road?

Think about it.

What is in a name? Spirit.

To the Editor ( October 24, 2010 )

What is in a name? Spirit.

The recent activity at Moncton High School once more brings up the question of its fate. I have a few thoughts on it. In particular I’m addressing David Wilson’s letter “A new facility replacing MHS makes sense”

It is not simply a building we want to save; it is something more important although less tangible. Those who logically look at everything in terms of cost-benefit analysis may find it hard to understand, but I trust some of you will follow me.

MHS may have been badly built or poorly maintained, but it has character. It makes a lasting impression. Many modern buildings are badly built and poorly maintained, with no spark of character at all. Why is this? Because the men who build things have a dual nature; in the past they were usually artists & architects, today they are usually accountants & engineers.

Mr. Wilson actually has a good point, although I like MHS a new facility would make sense. It could incorporate many modern aspects not easily added to the existing building. It would most likely be less expensive than renovating. But let’s face reality; we will not get a school of comparable quality for cheap.

Let’s consider the replacement options.

1. Have a good-bye party for MHS, and then salvage everything that can be reused or sold to raise funds for the new building. Demolish it all, don’t try to join new to old that always causes problems. Build on the same site, a new school that will keep the style of the old. Do not build to minimum code with cheapest methods and materials. Give it some grandeur: high ceilings, stone work and hard-wood trim. This way it may have continuity and be worthy of keeping the name Moncton High.
2. Donate MHS to the Heritage Society and let them deal with it. Build a brand new school across town. Make it modern in every aspect, a showcase for efficient “green” architecture. But do not name it Moncton High, let it be a new school with its own name, do not try to transplant the spirit.

The last thing we want to see is a cheap new concrete box-school across town with a few token stones around the door pretending to be our MHS.

Discouraged but not giving up

To the Editor ( October 12, 2010 )

I was very interested to read “Can you come home again” an article you ran October 9^th about expatriate NBers returning to the province. It is exactly my situation. After living in Montreal for many years, working at some low end jobs, then going to university to get a degree, I decided it was time to move back East. I wanted to provide a sort of quality environment for my young children that I just could not find in the big city.

The particular problem Iv found in searching for work in Moncton since this summer is the kind of jobs that are available. A friend said; any work is better than no work. But I just have to disagree. I have worked in restaurants and in retail, Iv been a box monkey in warehouses and a lawn gnome in landscaping. About the only thin I have not done is telemarketing. These are all ok jobs if you are in your teens or enjoying life at 20somthing. Now that I have a family and a degree, to pay for, I require something more.

But what do I find here? I could have had a job in a weak, if I was willing to be a phone jockey. Sure there are lots of jobs out there; lots of jobs with high turn over rates because no one really wants to do them.

All that aside, I have a question for Mr Mazerolle. In the tag line of the article he said “City of Moncton offers help.” No place in the article did I see anything about specific help offered by our fair city. If the mayor wants me to come work for him, Im happy to consider his offer.

Discouraged but not giving up hope

The Troubles with Our Democracy

To the Editor ( September 10, 2010 )

The Troubles with Our Democracy

As I understand it we have three big problems

1. Voter turn out is just the first most obvious trouble. People are apathetic about elections. They don’t think their vote really matters so they do not go vote. This attitude is founded on some very solid ground. Years of experience have shown that once elected politicians – in specific the leader of the ruling party – do what they want, failing to live up to promises, etc. They frequently seem to make the worst possible choices.
2. 
   The undemocratic system of running a government. Once the election is done, seats are filled the democratic parts are over. The party leader usually dictates policy and how his members will vote on any bill that aims to become law. The party candidate for your district is not really your representative: he represents his party.
3. 
   Thus we have the third problem established: Public involvement in politics after Election Day. Many people just go back to life as normal following political events as spectators, complaining but doing nothing. What can they do? Their local rep may be sympathetic to their concerns, if they bother to make them known. But he is constrained and must tow the party line.

So the more you know about how it all works the more reasonable apathy at election time looks.

The Problem with Legalized Pot

To the Editor ( March 12, 2010 )

The Problem with Legalized Pot

Can you guess what will happen if pot is made legal? Look at the history of tobacco and the cigarette industry then you will have a clue.

Immediately after the complicated law is passed, a few big companies will branch into the business of making joints and other pot products. If you think the law will simply make cannabis an uncontrolled substance you are dreaming. At the very lest there will be licenses required to grow it and taxes to be paid on selling it.

Did you ever stop to ask; why we don’t have small time tobacco growers and cigarette makers? Big business tends to drive out small operations with legal, if unfair, tactics. We can expect a similar pattern of progress in the pot industry. In a decade or less a few big companies will control most of it. They will naturally lobby for new laws to increase standards of pot products. This is a time honored tactic to make the products impossible for smaller businesses to competitively produce, not really a consumer friendly concern. We can hope that the big boys will make safe joints, omitting the harmful chemicals found in cigarettes. But we know they will make their products as cheep and addictive as the law allows; that is just common business practice.

Now what about organized crime? Once pot is legal we may expect to see it decline. Organized business will come to dominate and we may see millions of investment dollars coming into Canada to support our new pot industry. But what if other countries, in particular the USA, do not legalize it also? Organized crime, especially smuggling, becomes prime. Read your Prohibition history closely; in the 1920-30s alcohol was illegal in the USA but not in Canada. Those were very good times for some Canadian entrepreneurs, would the same happen again in the case of legalized pot? Or would our American neighbors freak and call us a drug dealing, anti-democratic, den of thieves.

Im not for or against pot, what I want is for people to think clearly about what is likely to happen if we do legalize it.

Thanks for your attention

old school - new school

To the editor ( February 25, 2010 )

Let’s have some optimistic involvement in the new high school design.

The fate of MHS is set; as any skillful predictor of public policy could have guessed a year ago, a compromise solution was taken that aims to save the historic building and establish a new school. Its an idea that tries to please people and be inexpensive. Although the fate of the MHS building is still up in the air, that is not my concern here. My interest is in starting a public debate over what we want in our new high school.

Will we be happy with a clone of Northrop Frye? It would be an economical idea as the architectural plans are already drawn up. We could dress up the front with a few stones in the style of MSH, adding character at low cost. Actually I think that sort of thing is a horrible idea. The new school should be NEW, that includes having its own name. It can not be MHS and it should not try. Let’s dream up a bright hopeful name for the future or go digging the local history for a name to use; consider some of Moncton’s first teachers back in the 1800s.

My point is that we should get some public input on this project. The Times & Transcript should open an electronic forum to collect ideas and criticisms of those ideas; then publish a summary before the building goes up.

Let’s hear from the students, what is good and bad about the high schools they go to now. Let’s hear from the teachers, about how the school environment can be made to help learning. Let’s hear from anyone with a good idea.

I want to see a wish list of all the best things that should be in a school. Then I want to see the list cut down by sensible penny pinching critics. I’m not cynical here, just realistic. Thus I make final more difficult request. I want to see innovative ideas as to how the good items on the wish list can be economically integrated into the new school.

I don’t blame the rich for poverty;

To the Editor (February 12, 2010)

I don’t blame the rich for poverty; I blame them for not solving it.

“No one must live in poverty.” yet many people do. Iv often thought about why this is the case in our society. In some places it can be argued that there are simply not enough resources to allow everyone a decent standard of living. Another argument has it that each person gets what he deserves according to his hard work. As there is no call for equality in nature, there need not be one among humans.

The first argument clearly does not apply to us in North America, we have lots of “fat” people; that is to say people with double or ten times more than they need to survive. The second argument presents an odd morality that is troubling to me. It justifies inequality as a natural result of hard work, negating compassion or any claim for redistribution. It also ignores the fact that some people are wealthy simply from being lucky enough to be born into a rich family.

My point is; people must not live in poverty, but they are forced to do so.

So long as any individual makes a multi million dollar yearly income, so long as anyone can afford a $500,000 paint job for his yacht, there is no excuse to allow anybody to suffer cold and hungry, unsure of how he will pay his basic bills. Our capitalist system supports hard work and rewards success; that is fine. But it also supports poverty. We all accept the idea that a man has the right to earn as much as he can and keep most of it. For many people this is the key to basic survival, if half of what they earned was taken away they would be below the poverty line. However it is inaccurate to apply the same notion to the rich.

Mr. G. Nixon, CEO of Royal Bank, may work hard for his money, but his earning $11 million in one year is exactly the sort of proof that no one needs to live in poverty. People live in poverty because the rich chose not to part with their money. Just think of the aid fund we could have if every high paid executive who made over $4 million / year donated half their income. They would be in no danger of starving and many people would be much better off.

Think about it.

In regards to corporate tax cuts;

To the Editor (February 04, 2010)

In regards to corporate tax cuts;

As we face a federal debt of some $557,633,000,000 that is $557 billion and an annual deficit of about $56 billion, we are allowing corporations to pay less income tax, depriving ourselves of some $6 billion in revenue. Why?

Because we trust economic experts who tell us this move will stimulate growth. We hope that those corporations will expand and employ more people. Those happy workers will then pay sales tax on stuff they buy and income tax on the money they earn. That’s a nice dream, but I’m sure the growth will not actually cover the missing revenue. It is quite possible said corporations will expand by hiring thousands in South Asia and only a few new workers for their Canadian locations.

Improvements will happen jobs will be created; the government and corporations will smile about it and call it a success. But when we look good and hard at the numbers down the road we will find that the revenue generated fell short of the revenue lost. Thus some of the unpleasant cutbacks in public service made to reduce the deficit, in fact go to offset the missing corporate revenue.

For example; Tax cuts result in $6 billion less income, new jobs and growth result in $4 billion new revenue, but we still have a $2 billion short fall. So we must cut $2 billion in spending just to maintain that above mentioned deficit level of $56 billion.

Why are we doing this? Corporations benefit directly from getting to keep more money in their pockets and indirectly by looking like good guys as they create new jobs. Politicians also benefit as they claim to have generated new jobs and new revenue. They ignore the inconvenient question of short fall.

The real point I want to make is; corporate tax cuts, personal tax increases, new fees and service downsizing are not enough. They are a band aid on the Titanic. We must cut spending by over 50 billion and generate some 50 billion in new revenue, over the next 10 years if we really want to solve our debt problem. This is an impossible task given traditional thinking. We need brave new ideas or we need to shrug our shoulders and accept the idea that the debt will never go away.

Thanks for your attention

Introduction

Hello there.
The following blog postings are all letters that I have submitted to my local news paper as public opinion articles, over the last two years. Most of them have been printed, with some minimal changes made by the editor. The letters will appear here in their original formal, along with the date they were posted to the press. Most letters deal with generic current events in politics and economics, however a few letters are concerned with local community issues.