I will lower taxes
"I will lower taxes and cut excessive services."
What do you hear?
Photos GH
Showing posts with label big business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big business. Show all posts
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Modern Messaging: "what do you hear?" 1
You have been replaced
"You have been replaced by a machine"
What do you hear?
Photos by GH
Statues in Grand Rapids, MI
Saturday, August 31, 2013
The News: PenEquity development, London
As the recent development in our fair city stands, it seems the following, among other things, will happen:
Many, many trees near Dingman Drive will fall and, after a careful count, be replaced elsewhere at a ratio of 6 to 1 (new for old).
Though other observers will point out greater issues at stake, e.g., jobs, I point out 'the removal and relocation of trees' because that particular process is symbolic. It underlines - with wasted trees and wetlands - the weaknesses and shortsightedness of much of modern development.
Based on my belief that much of London's past commercial development (say the last 20 years) has not created new customers for consumer goods as much as it has stolen them from others, we will see the following occur once Dingman Drive, south of the 401, is open for business:
The oft-repeated removal and relocation of consumers, i.e., flocks of newly excited consumers from one part of the city will simply drive to another.
Many observers of this migration will quickly be reminded of similar past events, e.g., the migration of downtown shoppers to the edges of our ever-expanding domain, resulting in the boarding up of many small businesses. And once-successful malls in other areas of the city are now not, because bigger ones were later built and stole consumers away.
Some will say, "That's life." And that is certainly true when we begin to think that new development is better than redevelopment (e.g., of the core of London), jobs must be created at any price, bigger is better, and an expanded city is better than compact.
As I write I am convinced that a business as usual philosophy produces greater losses than gains and London has once again bet on the wrong horse.
Many, many trees near Dingman Drive will fall and, after a careful count, be replaced elsewhere at a ratio of 6 to 1 (new for old).
Though other observers will point out greater issues at stake, e.g., jobs, I point out 'the removal and relocation of trees' because that particular process is symbolic. It underlines - with wasted trees and wetlands - the weaknesses and shortsightedness of much of modern development.
Based on my belief that much of London's past commercial development (say the last 20 years) has not created new customers for consumer goods as much as it has stolen them from others, we will see the following occur once Dingman Drive, south of the 401, is open for business:
The oft-repeated removal and relocation of consumers, i.e., flocks of newly excited consumers from one part of the city will simply drive to another.
Many observers of this migration will quickly be reminded of similar past events, e.g., the migration of downtown shoppers to the edges of our ever-expanding domain, resulting in the boarding up of many small businesses. And once-successful malls in other areas of the city are now not, because bigger ones were later built and stole consumers away.
Some will say, "That's life." And that is certainly true when we begin to think that new development is better than redevelopment (e.g., of the core of London), jobs must be created at any price, bigger is better, and an expanded city is better than compact.
As I write I am convinced that a business as usual philosophy produces greater losses than gains and London has once again bet on the wrong horse.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Food - E: It Strikes Me Funny
I'm thinking about transitioning from three meals per day to four. Not because I want to eat more food but because I want to eat less. I don't need more food. Just ask my stomach.
I think somebody other than me conditioned me to eat three meals per day. Maybe my mom, back when I was a kid, back in the days before every home in Norwich had hydro in every room and a flush toilet inside the house. But, that being said, maybe she was conditioned by her mom. And her mom by her mom, and so on and so on back to the day when people began to feel that breakfast at 8, lunch at 12 and supper at 6 (approx.) was just going to be the way it should be. So I don't blame anybody in particular. (But I do lean toward blaming the Anglo-Saxons.)
["Helpings are going over the top. Why?"]
Today I feel three meals per day just isn't working for me. Each meal is becoming excessive in size - with a capital E - and importance. Just about everywhere I turn breakfast, lunch and supper are heralded as HUGE events. The way things are going, food - and LOTS of it - will soon be crowned King of all the universe and everybody shall be bowing down before it.
It's up to me to do something radical to break the routine. I thought of a plan today while slicing a typical burger into two equal halves and saying, "I'll have the other half later 'cause the darn thing is so big." The plan is half-baked but important to my health.
Have you been thinking some of the same thoughts lately?
Have you been thinking some of the same thoughts lately?
More to follow.
***
Please click here to read the ballot: it strikes me funny
Friday, April 12, 2013
job wanted
London's unemployment will likely be at 10% by mid-spring.
One reason:
Doctored photo from yachtown.com by GH
***
Please click here to read '10% unemployment is coming'
One reason:
Doctored photo from yachtown.com by GH
***
Please click here to read '10% unemployment is coming'
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
2012 in Review PT 5: “Harsh attitudes crushed the less-fortunate in the past”
Do you have a library card? If so, I recommend you borrow a book by Bill Bryson entitled At Home: A Short History of Private Life.
As I’ve been writing and thinking about the demise of good jobs in this decade (particularly in 2012), I’ve noticed that Bryson’s book occasionally provides evidence of several harsh attitudes that crushed not only the spirits but the bodies of the poor and less-fortunate. (As mentioned in an earlier post, the poor made up the majority of citizens for many centuries).
For example, I recently wrote that the consideration of even the most basic human rights in the mid-1800s was hindered by cruel attitudes from unexpected quarters. Reverend T. R. Malthus (1766 - 1834), for some reason, blamed the poor for their own hardships and opposed the idea of relief for the masses on the grounds that it simply increased their tendency to idleness.
And regarding Ireland’s Great Famine in 1845 - 46, I came across the following lines in Bryson’s book:
From the moment of the potato’s introduction to Europe, failed harvests became regular... Three hundred thousand people died in a single failure in 1739. But that appalling total was made to seem insignificant by the scale of death and suffering in 1845 - 46... It wasn’t just in Ireland that the crop failed - in fact, it failed across Europe - but the Irish were especially dependent on the potato.
Relief was infamously slow to come. Months after the starving had started, Sir Robert Peel, the British prime minister, was still urging caution.
“There is such a tendency to exaggeration and inaccuracy in Irish reports that delay in acting on them is always desirable,” he wrote.
[Monument beside Lake Ontario near downtown Kingston, Ontario]
Lest we say that it was only misguided or uninformed public servants that opposed the idea of relief and delayed any meaningful action on behalf of the less-fortunate, we must hear the following about big business interests of the day:
In the worst year of the potato famine, London’s fish market, Billingsgate, sold 500 million oysters, 1 billion fresh herrings, almost 100 million soles, 498 million shrimps, 304 million periwinkles, 33 million plaice, 23 million mackerel, and other similarly massive amounts - and not one morsel of any of it made its way to Ireland to relieve the starving people there. (pg. 84, At Home)
[Enlargement of monument script: Photos by G. Harrison, 2006]
By now some readers are likely wondering, “What do these harsh attitudes of the past, whether demonstrated by public or business leaders, have to do with the decline of good, secure jobs in the modern era?”
To be sure, I think that’s a very good question as well.
More to follow.
FYI - periwinkles are any small marine snail belonging to the family Littorinidae (class Gastropoda, phylum Mollusca)
- plaice is the common name used for a group of flatfish. There are four species in the group, the European, American, Alaskan and scale-eye plaice.
So now you know!
***
Please click here to read 2012 in Review PT 4: “Grandparents will recall the worst of times”
.
As I’ve been writing and thinking about the demise of good jobs in this decade (particularly in 2012), I’ve noticed that Bryson’s book occasionally provides evidence of several harsh attitudes that crushed not only the spirits but the bodies of the poor and less-fortunate. (As mentioned in an earlier post, the poor made up the majority of citizens for many centuries).
For example, I recently wrote that the consideration of even the most basic human rights in the mid-1800s was hindered by cruel attitudes from unexpected quarters. Reverend T. R. Malthus (1766 - 1834), for some reason, blamed the poor for their own hardships and opposed the idea of relief for the masses on the grounds that it simply increased their tendency to idleness.
And regarding Ireland’s Great Famine in 1845 - 46, I came across the following lines in Bryson’s book:
From the moment of the potato’s introduction to Europe, failed harvests became regular... Three hundred thousand people died in a single failure in 1739. But that appalling total was made to seem insignificant by the scale of death and suffering in 1845 - 46... It wasn’t just in Ireland that the crop failed - in fact, it failed across Europe - but the Irish were especially dependent on the potato.
Relief was infamously slow to come. Months after the starving had started, Sir Robert Peel, the British prime minister, was still urging caution.
“There is such a tendency to exaggeration and inaccuracy in Irish reports that delay in acting on them is always desirable,” he wrote.
[Monument beside Lake Ontario near downtown Kingston, Ontario]
Lest we say that it was only misguided or uninformed public servants that opposed the idea of relief and delayed any meaningful action on behalf of the less-fortunate, we must hear the following about big business interests of the day:
In the worst year of the potato famine, London’s fish market, Billingsgate, sold 500 million oysters, 1 billion fresh herrings, almost 100 million soles, 498 million shrimps, 304 million periwinkles, 33 million plaice, 23 million mackerel, and other similarly massive amounts - and not one morsel of any of it made its way to Ireland to relieve the starving people there. (pg. 84, At Home)
[Enlargement of monument script: Photos by G. Harrison, 2006]
By now some readers are likely wondering, “What do these harsh attitudes of the past, whether demonstrated by public or business leaders, have to do with the decline of good, secure jobs in the modern era?”
To be sure, I think that’s a very good question as well.
More to follow.
FYI - periwinkles are any small marine snail belonging to the family Littorinidae (class Gastropoda, phylum Mollusca)
- plaice is the common name used for a group of flatfish. There are four species in the group, the European, American, Alaskan and scale-eye plaice.
So now you know!
***
Please click here to read 2012 in Review PT 4: “Grandparents will recall the worst of times”
.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 2
[“Why occupy Wall St. and Bay? For starters... fear of another economic collapse, harder on families and communities than the last one... the knowledge that the corporate and banking elite grow richer while an increasing number of families do not.” Oct. 25, G.Harrison, It Strikes me Funny]
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that occupiers of Wall St., Bay St., and Victoria Park (London, Ontario), to name but a few places, are planning to hunker down where they are in tents and sleeping bags for the North American winter in order to show solidarity to one another and stand behind their message that some things important to them must change.
During the winter some media commentators will still be asking the question ‘why occupy’ for some of the following reasons, among others of course:
because they don’t know what many citizens are thinking
because they know what the occupiers are thinking but don’t support their ideas and believe they should get a job
According to a recent poll, 31 per cent of Sun Media readers believe occupiers should be looking for work, but based on the ongoing struggles in the North American economy and the resultant high unemployment numbers (London is the centre of high unemployment in SW Ontario), the lack of work and good long-term full-time jobs may very well be one of the major reasons why people are taking to the streets in significant numbers to say something to any who will listen.
Though many may know about London leading the province with rates of 9 per cent or more, they will not know by personal experience how no job or a low-paying job affects a single mother or father or family trying hard to keep a roof over their head or the heat on through a long winter.
I don’t know what 9 per cent unemployment means myself. I know numbers of visitors to local food banks will rise because of it, but does 9 per cent mean that 91% are employed with productive, well-paying, full-time, long-term jobs and have nothing to complain about? Does 9 per cent track those without jobs or does it include those who are chronically under-employed? If not, does anyone know the percentage of people, young and old, who only earn enough to scrape by and are unable to save up funds for an uncertain future?
In Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges, Earnest Logan reportedly says the following:
The winters [in New York State] are really hard. There are less jobs and the heating costs are high. It is a struggle [for me]. But at least I have not had to devote forty hours a week to a minimum wage job that does not pay me a living wage. People here are really hurting. The real underemployment rate must be at least twenty per cent. A lot of people are working part-time jobs when they want full-time jobs. (pg. 5)
I would suspect Ontario’s underemployment rate is under 20 per cent but I don’t know for certain. I do know, however, if I was a young person with no decent prospects for a good job in the future, I might consider joining with others of like-mind and raise questions about, for starters, why the world works the way it does, why the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and why steady work for adequate pay is so hard to find.
Why occupy?
More to follow.
***
Please click here to read Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 1
.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that occupiers of Wall St., Bay St., and Victoria Park (London, Ontario), to name but a few places, are planning to hunker down where they are in tents and sleeping bags for the North American winter in order to show solidarity to one another and stand behind their message that some things important to them must change.
During the winter some media commentators will still be asking the question ‘why occupy’ for some of the following reasons, among others of course:
because they don’t know what many citizens are thinking
because they know what the occupiers are thinking but don’t support their ideas and believe they should get a job
According to a recent poll, 31 per cent of Sun Media readers believe occupiers should be looking for work, but based on the ongoing struggles in the North American economy and the resultant high unemployment numbers (London is the centre of high unemployment in SW Ontario), the lack of work and good long-term full-time jobs may very well be one of the major reasons why people are taking to the streets in significant numbers to say something to any who will listen.
Though many may know about London leading the province with rates of 9 per cent or more, they will not know by personal experience how no job or a low-paying job affects a single mother or father or family trying hard to keep a roof over their head or the heat on through a long winter.
I don’t know what 9 per cent unemployment means myself. I know numbers of visitors to local food banks will rise because of it, but does 9 per cent mean that 91% are employed with productive, well-paying, full-time, long-term jobs and have nothing to complain about? Does 9 per cent track those without jobs or does it include those who are chronically under-employed? If not, does anyone know the percentage of people, young and old, who only earn enough to scrape by and are unable to save up funds for an uncertain future?
In Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges, Earnest Logan reportedly says the following:
The winters [in New York State] are really hard. There are less jobs and the heating costs are high. It is a struggle [for me]. But at least I have not had to devote forty hours a week to a minimum wage job that does not pay me a living wage. People here are really hurting. The real underemployment rate must be at least twenty per cent. A lot of people are working part-time jobs when they want full-time jobs. (pg. 5)
I would suspect Ontario’s underemployment rate is under 20 per cent but I don’t know for certain. I do know, however, if I was a young person with no decent prospects for a good job in the future, I might consider joining with others of like-mind and raise questions about, for starters, why the world works the way it does, why the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and why steady work for adequate pay is so hard to find.
Why occupy?
More to follow.
***
Please click here to read Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 1
.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 1
[“(Ernest Logan) Bell, who lives in Lansing, New York, is the new face of resistance. He is young, at home in the culture of the military, deeply suspicious of the (US) Federal Government, dismissive of the liberal class, unable to find work, and angry.” pg. 2, Death of the Liberal Class]
Some members of local and national media will express surprise when considering the occupation of Wall St. in the US and Bay St. in Canada, to name but two streets where a collection of people from various walks of life are gathering or have gathered to ask or raise questions or make bold statements.
“Why?” some will ask, often rhetorically.
“What does this have to do with anything? What are they trying to say?” some will add.
I read in a recent poll offered by Sun Media in a local paper (Oct. 20, The London Free Press) that 31 per cent of respondents felt, dismissively, the occupiers should just ‘go find a job.’
As I’ve been reading an international bestseller entitled ‘Death of the Liberal Class’ by Chris Hedges, I’ve encountered comments and ideas that may help the media and other observers (some unenlightened, others enlightened but resistant to any change to the status quo) answer for themselves and others the question ‘why’.
The following is taken from Hedge’s conversation with Ernie Bell, NY:
(Bell says,) I believe all signs point to a real systemic economic collapse in the near future... I assure you it’s going to hurt everyone, except of course, the corporate and banking elite... the political system as it stands offers little hope for influencing real change or social justice... we must stand in the streets and refuse to be silenced. We must reject corporate-controlled politics and focus on rebuilding a localized political structure and society. A revolution is the only alternative to complete surrender and defeat. pg. 3
["South Africa's symbol of justice": link to photo]
Why occupy Wall St. and Bay?
For starters...
fear of another economic collapse, harder on families and communities than the last one
the knowledge that the corporate and banking elite grow richer while an increasing number of families do not
the political system offers little help for positive change or justice for many individuals and families
to shake a fist at selfish corporate policies and seemingly powerless corporate-controlled governments
to express support for the rebuilding of the political structure and society
to resist the attitude of surrender and defeat
Are there other identifiable, concrete reasons to occupy streets of significant address in countries across the globe?
***
Please click here to read more about resistance to change.
.
Some members of local and national media will express surprise when considering the occupation of Wall St. in the US and Bay St. in Canada, to name but two streets where a collection of people from various walks of life are gathering or have gathered to ask or raise questions or make bold statements.
“Why?” some will ask, often rhetorically.
“What does this have to do with anything? What are they trying to say?” some will add.
I read in a recent poll offered by Sun Media in a local paper (Oct. 20, The London Free Press) that 31 per cent of respondents felt, dismissively, the occupiers should just ‘go find a job.’
As I’ve been reading an international bestseller entitled ‘Death of the Liberal Class’ by Chris Hedges, I’ve encountered comments and ideas that may help the media and other observers (some unenlightened, others enlightened but resistant to any change to the status quo) answer for themselves and others the question ‘why’.
The following is taken from Hedge’s conversation with Ernie Bell, NY:
(Bell says,) I believe all signs point to a real systemic economic collapse in the near future... I assure you it’s going to hurt everyone, except of course, the corporate and banking elite... the political system as it stands offers little hope for influencing real change or social justice... we must stand in the streets and refuse to be silenced. We must reject corporate-controlled politics and focus on rebuilding a localized political structure and society. A revolution is the only alternative to complete surrender and defeat. pg. 3
["South Africa's symbol of justice": link to photo]
Why occupy Wall St. and Bay?
For starters...
fear of another economic collapse, harder on families and communities than the last one
the knowledge that the corporate and banking elite grow richer while an increasing number of families do not
the political system offers little help for positive change or justice for many individuals and families
to shake a fist at selfish corporate policies and seemingly powerless corporate-controlled governments
to express support for the rebuilding of the political structure and society
to resist the attitude of surrender and defeat
Are there other identifiable, concrete reasons to occupy streets of significant address in countries across the globe?
***
Please click here to read more about resistance to change.
.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
London’s Priorities: Economy, excess, entertainment, environment, eggs
[“At this critical juncture in our history on Earth, we are asking the wrong questions. Instead of “How do we reduce the deficit?” or “How do we carve out a niche in the global economy?” we should be asking, “What is an economy for?” and “How much is enough?” What are the things in life that provide joy and happiness, peace of mind and satisfaction? Does the plethora of goods that our high-production economy delivers so effectively provide the route to happiness and satisfaction, or do the relationships between human and nonhuman beings still form the core of the important things in life? Is the uniformity of food and other products that we now encounter everywhere on the globe an adequate substitute for the different and the unexpected?” pg. 298, The Sacred Balance, by David Suzuki]
I may have my city’s priorities out of whack.
Its priorities may be “economy, economy, economy, excess, entertainment, environment, eggs.”
Environment may even come after eggs. I may have to do an egg-spensive study to be sure.
People, we live in very interesting times, do we not?
For most people the economy comes before all else. And for certain, the entertainment section in local papers - just the movie listings alone - is always twice as long (at least) than articles about environmental concerns, reparations or improvements in the fair to middlin’ four-way crossing we call home.
Why, federally (correct or quote me if I’m wrong), we have a Conservative government that wouldn’t say ‘environment’ even if it had a mouth full of it.
Locally, we usually do a bit better than that, except when economic matters hit a rough patch, which is now - in the minds of many - most of the time.
When the economy is doing poorly, many other priorities suffer. Not excess and entertainment particularly (“We must have our mega-burgers and movies!”), but for certain, the environment and eggs, or eggs and the environment (you decide the order).
I began thinking about our unbalanced priorities after reading The McLeod Report.ca, London News, July 21.
City councillor Denise Brown, about her new position on council, said the following:
“It’s a full-time job, but it doesn’t feel like a full-time job.”
What frustrates her though, is the time it takes to get things done. Among the distractions she cites the renewed debate over chickens in the backyard...
“Do I want my neighbours to have chickens next to me? No. I know the animals chickens attract and that’s an issue and it will only get worse.”
On what should council be focusing? Jobs, she says without hesitation. “We need to get businesses into London. We need to make London very attractive to big business. We need lots of jobs.” (Phil McLeod)
["Dear Ann, Can we talk about chickens today?"]
And in Denise Brown’s world, and many other’s as well, when people focus on the economy and jobs, i.e., properly, as in ‘above all else except fat hamburgers and fabulous movies,’ there is no time for environmental concerns or interests. Discussion? Humbug. Factory farms will supply everyone with eggs. Forget self-reliance. Forget doing something different or unexpected. Forget backyard coops. They’ll attract vermin. Next!
Are jobs important? Of course they are. But, as far as I’m aware, good jobs are not disconnected from the environment around us.
David Suzuki writes:
Some people believe that a clean environment is only affordable when the economy is strong, but in fact, it’s the other way around; the biosphere is what gives us life and a living. Human beings and our economies have to find a place within the environment. The economic assumption that endless growth is not only necessary but possible is suicidal for any species that lives in a finite world. (pg. 298, The Sacred Balance)
Rather than fewer discussions about chickens, perhaps more are needed, along with discussions about other topics that focus on a healthy connection with our natural surroundings.
If time allows, we could discuss the vermin already at home in London and what drew them here. Was it backyard chickens?
And we could discuss the city’s priorities too. I may have them out of whack.
***
Please click here for a few words about our unnatural surroundings.
.
I may have my city’s priorities out of whack.
Its priorities may be “economy, economy, economy, excess, entertainment, environment, eggs.”
Environment may even come after eggs. I may have to do an egg-spensive study to be sure.
People, we live in very interesting times, do we not?
For most people the economy comes before all else. And for certain, the entertainment section in local papers - just the movie listings alone - is always twice as long (at least) than articles about environmental concerns, reparations or improvements in the fair to middlin’ four-way crossing we call home.
Why, federally (correct or quote me if I’m wrong), we have a Conservative government that wouldn’t say ‘environment’ even if it had a mouth full of it.
Locally, we usually do a bit better than that, except when economic matters hit a rough patch, which is now - in the minds of many - most of the time.
When the economy is doing poorly, many other priorities suffer. Not excess and entertainment particularly (“We must have our mega-burgers and movies!”), but for certain, the environment and eggs, or eggs and the environment (you decide the order).
I began thinking about our unbalanced priorities after reading The McLeod Report.ca, London News, July 21.
City councillor Denise Brown, about her new position on council, said the following:
“It’s a full-time job, but it doesn’t feel like a full-time job.”
What frustrates her though, is the time it takes to get things done. Among the distractions she cites the renewed debate over chickens in the backyard...
“Do I want my neighbours to have chickens next to me? No. I know the animals chickens attract and that’s an issue and it will only get worse.”
On what should council be focusing? Jobs, she says without hesitation. “We need to get businesses into London. We need to make London very attractive to big business. We need lots of jobs.” (Phil McLeod)
["Dear Ann, Can we talk about chickens today?"]
And in Denise Brown’s world, and many other’s as well, when people focus on the economy and jobs, i.e., properly, as in ‘above all else except fat hamburgers and fabulous movies,’ there is no time for environmental concerns or interests. Discussion? Humbug. Factory farms will supply everyone with eggs. Forget self-reliance. Forget doing something different or unexpected. Forget backyard coops. They’ll attract vermin. Next!
Are jobs important? Of course they are. But, as far as I’m aware, good jobs are not disconnected from the environment around us.
David Suzuki writes:
Some people believe that a clean environment is only affordable when the economy is strong, but in fact, it’s the other way around; the biosphere is what gives us life and a living. Human beings and our economies have to find a place within the environment. The economic assumption that endless growth is not only necessary but possible is suicidal for any species that lives in a finite world. (pg. 298, The Sacred Balance)
Rather than fewer discussions about chickens, perhaps more are needed, along with discussions about other topics that focus on a healthy connection with our natural surroundings.
If time allows, we could discuss the vermin already at home in London and what drew them here. Was it backyard chickens?
And we could discuss the city’s priorities too. I may have them out of whack.
***
Please click here for a few words about our unnatural surroundings.
.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Bits and Pieces: PT 5 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[The notion that a consensus existed on cutting social spending was misleading. If anything, a consensus appeared to exist not to cut social spending. An Angus Reid poll, taken in late April 1993... found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians opposed any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent opposed any funding cuts to education. pg 34, L. McQuaig, Shooting the Hippo]
Yesterday I said, “And what does the average Canadian family want? If you’re an average Canadian let me know.”
I said that because senior economist Niels Veldhuis (Fraser Institute) says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), perhaps hoping the average Canadian would fall for his line of guff, clutch his chest and demand smaller government and fewer taxes and reduced social programs.
I’m pretty sure that’s what the elite want, but I believe their goals in 2011 differ greatly from those of the average working stiff (even though I referred to a 1993 poll).
Kevin O’Leary, seen nightly on the Lang and O’Leary Exchange (CBC TV), is on record for saying he supports a corporate tax rate of 0 per cent.
0 per cent. Of course, he’s a millionaire, he can afford private education for any children he might have now or in the future, he can afford private health care wherever he can find it, he can afford to let corporations (he’s the head of a business empire) get away with zero taxes. Why, he’d absolutely frickin’ love it!
What he doesn’t say is that the tax rate (all taxes) of the average Canadian family (41% on income of $72, 393) will likely rise substantially three seconds after he gets his wish.
O’Leary would love small government, lower taxes, fewer social benefits. O’Canadians want something else.
As mentioned earlier, 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent are opposed to any funding cuts to education.
From Shooting the Hippo:
This fits with the results of polls done by Environics. Dasko (pollster) said that support for social programs remains strong... the public supported the idea of reforming - rather than cutting - social programs. “People think there are inefficiencies and abuses in social programs and strongly feel that those should be ferreted out,” said Dasko.
Dasko also notes that while the public supports the idea of reforming programs, it is not primarily motivated by a desire to save money... the goal of ending inefficiencies ranked above the goal of saving money. Interestingly, however, the polling showed that people suspect that the government’s main motivation in overhauling the programs is to save money. (pg. 34)
Canadian readers are welcome to say the following:
Times have changed
McQuaig was referring to old news, e.g., polls from the 1990s
This is 2011. Liberals are out. Conservatives are in. Canadians want real change.
I have to ask. What kind of change does the average Canadian want?
Does the average Canadian family want a 39% tax rate, instead of 41%, and reduced government services (e.g., related to medicare and education) as a result?
Does the average Canadian feel that, in spite of what the Fraser Institute says, he is surviving in a satisfactory or excellent manner and doesn’t need to live by the same goals as the elite?
If you’re an average Canadian, let me know.
(Mr. O’Leary. No need to write).
***
Please click here to read PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
.
Yesterday I said, “And what does the average Canadian family want? If you’re an average Canadian let me know.”
I said that because senior economist Niels Veldhuis (Fraser Institute) says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), perhaps hoping the average Canadian would fall for his line of guff, clutch his chest and demand smaller government and fewer taxes and reduced social programs.
I’m pretty sure that’s what the elite want, but I believe their goals in 2011 differ greatly from those of the average working stiff (even though I referred to a 1993 poll).
Kevin O’Leary, seen nightly on the Lang and O’Leary Exchange (CBC TV), is on record for saying he supports a corporate tax rate of 0 per cent.
0 per cent. Of course, he’s a millionaire, he can afford private education for any children he might have now or in the future, he can afford private health care wherever he can find it, he can afford to let corporations (he’s the head of a business empire) get away with zero taxes. Why, he’d absolutely frickin’ love it!
What he doesn’t say is that the tax rate (all taxes) of the average Canadian family (41% on income of $72, 393) will likely rise substantially three seconds after he gets his wish.
O’Leary would love small government, lower taxes, fewer social benefits. O’Canadians want something else.
As mentioned earlier, 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent are opposed to any funding cuts to education.
From Shooting the Hippo:
This fits with the results of polls done by Environics. Dasko (pollster) said that support for social programs remains strong... the public supported the idea of reforming - rather than cutting - social programs. “People think there are inefficiencies and abuses in social programs and strongly feel that those should be ferreted out,” said Dasko.
Dasko also notes that while the public supports the idea of reforming programs, it is not primarily motivated by a desire to save money... the goal of ending inefficiencies ranked above the goal of saving money. Interestingly, however, the polling showed that people suspect that the government’s main motivation in overhauling the programs is to save money. (pg. 34)
Canadian readers are welcome to say the following:
Times have changed
McQuaig was referring to old news, e.g., polls from the 1990s
This is 2011. Liberals are out. Conservatives are in. Canadians want real change.
I have to ask. What kind of change does the average Canadian want?
Does the average Canadian family want a 39% tax rate, instead of 41%, and reduced government services (e.g., related to medicare and education) as a result?
Does the average Canadian feel that, in spite of what the Fraser Institute says, he is surviving in a satisfactory or excellent manner and doesn’t need to live by the same goals as the elite?
If you’re an average Canadian, let me know.
(Mr. O’Leary. No need to write).
***
Please click here to read PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Bits and Pieces: PT 2 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
[In 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes. Spending on food, clothing and shelter added up to 34% of the family income, the study found (i.e., a new study from conservative think-tank the Fraser Institute). April 27, London Free Press]
When I see a headline like ‘Taxes take 41% of pay’ I don’t gasp, clutch my chest or fall over due to weak knees.
["Where do I stand concerning tax rates?": photo of GH, 1969]
When I read that an average Canadian family pays 41.3% of its income on taxes I feel I need more information. What benefits do I receive for my tax dollars? What does the average family receive? What do the growing number of Canadian millionaires receive? 41.3% might be the bargain of a lifetime.
I’d also like more information about the corporate tax rate. I know it has gone down over the last few years and will go down another 1 - 2 per cent this year or next, thanks to the federal Conservative government.
So, I’d like to know how much revenue will be lost to the government because of the lower corporate tax rate. Will the 41% average family tax rate or beneficial government programs be under pressure because of the decline in corporate tax rate?
How much has the corporate tax rate declined since 2000? Since 1990? Since 1980? Since 1970? And what’s happened to our national debt from 1970 to the present time? Maybe time spent focusing on the average family would be better spent focusing on big business and a fairer, more-productive tax system.
And now that the conservative Fraser Institute has got me thinking about the average family and corporate tax rates, I want to know more about tax rates in other countries.
Do average families in the US or Europe, making $72,393 per year, pay more or less tax than Canadians? What benefits do they receive, or not receive, compared to Canadians? Perhaps we’d see, again, that 41.3% is an absolute bargain. Perhaps we’d see, in order to receive benefits common in other countries, that a slight increase in taxes would provide some very important improvements in our lifestyle.
Oh. Something else. I have some questions about the 34% that the average Canadian family - in the $70 - 75,000 income range - spends on food, clothing and shelter.
Stay tuned.
***
Please click here to read PT 1 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
.
When I see a headline like ‘Taxes take 41% of pay’ I don’t gasp, clutch my chest or fall over due to weak knees.
["Where do I stand concerning tax rates?": photo of GH, 1969]
When I read that an average Canadian family pays 41.3% of its income on taxes I feel I need more information. What benefits do I receive for my tax dollars? What does the average family receive? What do the growing number of Canadian millionaires receive? 41.3% might be the bargain of a lifetime.
I’d also like more information about the corporate tax rate. I know it has gone down over the last few years and will go down another 1 - 2 per cent this year or next, thanks to the federal Conservative government.
So, I’d like to know how much revenue will be lost to the government because of the lower corporate tax rate. Will the 41% average family tax rate or beneficial government programs be under pressure because of the decline in corporate tax rate?
How much has the corporate tax rate declined since 2000? Since 1990? Since 1980? Since 1970? And what’s happened to our national debt from 1970 to the present time? Maybe time spent focusing on the average family would be better spent focusing on big business and a fairer, more-productive tax system.
And now that the conservative Fraser Institute has got me thinking about the average family and corporate tax rates, I want to know more about tax rates in other countries.
Do average families in the US or Europe, making $72,393 per year, pay more or less tax than Canadians? What benefits do they receive, or not receive, compared to Canadians? Perhaps we’d see, again, that 41.3% is an absolute bargain. Perhaps we’d see, in order to receive benefits common in other countries, that a slight increase in taxes would provide some very important improvements in our lifestyle.
Oh. Something else. I have some questions about the 34% that the average Canadian family - in the $70 - 75,000 income range - spends on food, clothing and shelter.
Stay tuned.
***
Please click here to read PT 1 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??
.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Series of Significance: The free press follies fool no one
[The following five posts were originally presented over five separate days but are now presented below as one brilliant piece. No extra charge.]
Deforest City Blues Pt 1: Complete news? Ha!
Stand back. I feel a long and useful rant coming on.
Long, because yesterday’s editorial/point of view in the London Free Press raises so many interesting points inside my little round head.
For example: Why do some editorials smell so bad?
Is it because they are incomplete? Not balanced?
I’m not sure, but I’m willing to do some thinking out loud about this one.
I find it useful to do so.
[“The same-day DILBERT cartoon provides a hint to my true feelings about the editorial”]
If I kept all my feelings and opinions bottled up inside I might get acid reflux or indigestion - or ‘kick back,’ as I like to say at times.
The headline, i.e., ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes,’ wasn’t a bad start at all.
European debt is growing, so is Canada’s, debt can make our country vulnerable to many nasty consequences (e.g., kick back from future generations), and we all might be able to learn something from the debt crisis in Ireland and England.
So, hats off to an anonymous editorialist who lives somewhere deep in the bowels of the QMI Agency, i.e., the Quebec Media Inc. Agency, a media giant that, according to its mission statement “provides reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage...”
And that’s what we look for in the media, isn’t it? Reliability, completeness, up-to-the-minuteness?
Together, let’s see how QMI dishes out the news and discover what lessons we can learn here in Canada from the trials and tribulations of others.
More to follow.
***
First line of editorial:
“The welfare state has roared back to bite the British lion in the rump.”
Sounds exciting doesn’t it? But what’s that smell? Is it the lion's rump?
.
Deforest City Blues PT 2: News in London is by no means balanced
“The welfare state has roared back to bite the British lion in the rump.
“Ditto for the Irish economy.
“Saddled with massive debt and staggering under unaffordable social programs, both the British and the Irish are facing massive cuts.
So begins a recent editorial in our local paper, The London Free Press. (Dec. 28, 2010)
And shortly after I read it, I began to write this long but useful rant. (Some stuff you just shouldn’t hold inside!)
Though the headline, i.e., ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes,’ wasn’t a bad start (we all might be able to learn something from the debt crisis in Ireland and England), the first 3 sentences above left a lot to be desired, especially certain key words.
I.e., the welfare state... unaffordable social programs.
Does QMI Agency call this “reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage” as per their mission statement?
Don’t make me laugh. If social programs are the only or chief cause of fiscal problems in Britain and Ireland then I’ll eat my hat - the sexy straw number made in Caracas, Venezuela!
["The sexy straw number from Caracas": photo GH]
And if that’s the chief lesson Canada will learn from European debt woes then I’ll even eat the silk hat band.
The anonymous editorialist makes the point that “this country has weathered well the economic storm that has battered the U.S. and Europe. But we can’t sit smugly back on our laurels.”
Good for him or her. Smug is bad. Cocky, even worse.
But to suggest only the following remedies is way past smug, way beyond cocky.
“We cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten when we can't afford them.
“We must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control.
“We must get public sector pay hikes under control - now.”
Why, the writer’s list is so incomplete, so devoid of proper balance, it is little wonder the writer didn’t provide his or her name.
To conclude the above list by saying ‘they are ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in the faces of future generations’ is so much a joke the whole piece deserves to be posted on the comics page.
In fact, on the comics page, the same day, I found a Dilbert strip that delightfully puts the editorial in proper perspective.
Below is Scott Adams’ second panel of three.
["Corporations actually transfer their tax burden?": dilbert.com]
So, what’s the punch line?
Stay tuned.
.
Deforest City Blues PT 3: Any news about private sector short-comings?
If you want complete news don’t look to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind our local paper, The London Free Press.
For QMI to say, as they did in a recent editorial, that public sector programs and wages are the chief reasons Canada is headed toward the same problems facing England, Ireland Portugal, Greece and Spain, is almost comic.
I actually got more truth from a same-day Dilbert cartoon.
For some unnamed editor to write that social programs are unaffordable and “we cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten... we must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control... we must get public sector pay hikes under control - now... they are ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in the faces of future generations” is a far cry from “reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage” as per the QMI mission statement.
Why?
Because not one word is said about any expensive short comings in the private sector or business enterprises.
I can assure you, if there are time bombs in the public sector, there are far greater ones in the private.
For example:
Our own mayor recently expressed a wish to impose a special levy (and create an economic development fund) on local taxpayers so that monies could be collected and used to encourage local economic development.
(I wrote about it in my weekly column here.)
Here are the juicy bits:
“The city waives development charges — levied to help pay for the cost of growth — for new and expanding industries. Those charges totalled $9.5 million in 2009. Instead, taxpayers picked up the tab.”
“Homeowners are also paying $4 million a year in higher water rates than recommended, so business can get a break.”
“Those two policies alone amount to $13.5 million a year.” (‘Subsidies In Spotlight’ by Norman De Bono, The London Free Press, August 17, 2010)
If you can show me that London’s public programs and wages would be as unaffordable as QMI implies if our wise city fathers had $13.5 additional dollars at their disposal - annually! - then I’ll eat my hat.
And London is just one of dozens of medium-sized cities across Canada supporting private enterprise through public tax dollars. The total amount of subsidies, bailouts, no-interest loans, etc., must be in the billions.
I’d ask QMI Agency for a number but I’m sure they don’t know. They’re so busy painting the public sector black that they have no time to notice how quickly and deeply the private sector is bleeding the country dry.
Read ‘song for the blue ocean.’ Private fisheries are bleeding the oceans dry. (See ‘read This’ in right hand margin).
Read ‘The Politics of Oil.’ Private oil refineries are bleeding governments, whole countries dry.
Read ‘The Collapse of Globalism’ in which I recently read the following:
“It was noticed that from the second half of the 1990s on, two-thirds of American corporations paid no federal income tax. Yet corporate profits were soaring.
“Ninety percent of companies paid under 5 percent of their total income.
“In Equatorial Guinea, newly rich in oil, the national income is statistically sixth in the world. In reality the money goes elsewhere (i.e., not into the public purse, e.g., to help with public education) and the multinationals involved are complicit in its disappearance.”
On every corner of the globe private enterprise has degraded the land, sea, air and public purse for the sake of profit and power.
Yet QMI degrades the public sector, and like the upstanding private citizen that it is, forgets to mention any harm its fellow corporate friends have done to the public purse they all eat and benefit from.
According to a Dilbert cartoon featured on the same day as the unbalanced, incomplete editorial (note - I'm being very kind), there’s a common name for the type of sandwich that private enterprise wants the common man to eat every single day of the year.
["With a tip of the hat to Scott Adams and Dilbert.com"]
Can you guess its lovely name?
***
Some people might say, "Gee, I've never tasted a Sh_t Sandwich."
They would be wrong.
.
Deforest City Blues PT 4: Could QMI Agency be wrong? Biased?
If you want complete news don’t look to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind our local paper, The London Free Press.
Sometimes, a letter addressed to the editor contains more truth than a QMI editorial.
Case in point: Shortly after the editorial entitled ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes’ (Dec. 28, 2010) hit the streets, a reader responded with some valuable information.
Margaret Hoff wrote this letter:
“The QMI Agency editorial... concluded Canada must cut spending on social programs like full-day kindergarten so we won’t have the problems of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. None of these countries have full-day kindergarten programs.” (Jan. 3, 2011, London Free Press)
(Geesh. You would think a newspaper editor would know stuff like that. Sorry, I digress).
“The countries in Europe that have outstanding childcare programs are the countries that are bailing out the others. They have learned that spending money on quality childcare is an excellent investment that reduces other government costs.”
(Geesh. You would think a newspaper editor would know... sorry, I digress).
“The Ontario full-day learning system needs tweaking, but will demonstrate its value in years to come.”
(Geesh. Sorry).
I think QMI is short on details related to the good that public programs can accomplish and the high costs associated with subsidizing businesses across Canada because it’s too busy applying a thick coat of black paint, or ink, to the public sector.
Why so much black ink?
.
Deforest City Blues PT 5: Unbalanced dailies = unbalanced readership
Though many Londoners realize they shouldn’t look for complete news in The London Free Press, thanks to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind the paper, others eat up unbalanced editorials and parrot or champion editorials at many an opportunity.
A couple of days ago, Joe Carr wrote the following in a letter to the editor:
“Let’s get real. The economy is still in a fragile state. Provincial governments and municipalities are struggling to keep taxes under control and give relief to hard-pressed taxpayers.”
So far, so good. No need for me to crack the whip at poor Joe. He’s just venting.
And maybe he’s going to share a worthy idea related to tax control.
He says:
“It is time for the police, firefighters, teachers and others in that reasonably safe employment group to step up to the plate and help out. They are well paid (and deservedly so) and if they took a wage freeze for a year they would still be well paid.”
Certainly, the public servants mentioned would likely survive a wage freeze. But... and this is a big but... are public servants the only ones that should make a sacrifice to help “keep taxes under control and give some relief to hard-pressed taxpayers?”
There are other members of society too with money, some of them with bags of money, with some of the bags coming directly from taxpayers’ pockets.
Joe might change his tune if he heard more often that taxpayer subsidies to London developers and industries have been equal to $13.5 million annually in recent years. Joe might one day think that if he wants more bang for his buck for hard-pressed taxpayers he should look more critically at the private sector books, not the public’s.
According to recent news, one economic development group in London has an $800,000 surplus and still our Mayor thinks a special levy (upon the public, for the private sector) is in order to help with local economic development.
Mr. Carr laments, “Many (public servants) took large raises during the hardest portion of the recession...”
No mention is made of raises in the private sector or the ridiculously high level of compensation given to CEOs in private business at the same time.
He concludes, “It’s time to give the people who suffered through this scary time a chance to catch up. The economy needs these people to work and make a decent wage for the economy to fully recover.”
Excellent conclusion, in my humble opinion. I’m sure there’s not one among us who disagrees with helping people catch up or recover.
What I do disagree with, however, is the total absence of any mention of the equal, if not greater, responsibility of the private sector.
Can problems related to unemployment, wage loss and uncontrollable taxes only be laid at the feed of the public sector?
No.
QMI Agency is wrong. Joe Carr is wrong.
We’re all in this together, and where sacrifices and changes (perhaps to employment and tax structures) can be made, they should be made.
We’re also in this equally, and there is no one among us without equal and growing responsibility to right many wrongs that exist.
In conclusion, I say there's nothing wrong with news agencies, editorialists or letter writers saying that there is much the public sector can do better. Savings can be made, many efficiencies can be considered. But there is also much, if not more, that the private sector can do better and Londoners should be able to read about it in their dailies.
To use Joe Carr’s words, it’s time for the private sector to “step up to the plate and help out” as well, and QMI should recognize that fact and editorialize about that side of the equation as often as they slam the public sector.
I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better already.
***
Please click here to link to more Deforest City Blues
.
Deforest City Blues Pt 1: Complete news? Ha!
Stand back. I feel a long and useful rant coming on.
Long, because yesterday’s editorial/point of view in the London Free Press raises so many interesting points inside my little round head.
For example: Why do some editorials smell so bad?
Is it because they are incomplete? Not balanced?
I’m not sure, but I’m willing to do some thinking out loud about this one.
I find it useful to do so.
[“The same-day DILBERT cartoon provides a hint to my true feelings about the editorial”]
If I kept all my feelings and opinions bottled up inside I might get acid reflux or indigestion - or ‘kick back,’ as I like to say at times.
The headline, i.e., ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes,’ wasn’t a bad start at all.
European debt is growing, so is Canada’s, debt can make our country vulnerable to many nasty consequences (e.g., kick back from future generations), and we all might be able to learn something from the debt crisis in Ireland and England.
So, hats off to an anonymous editorialist who lives somewhere deep in the bowels of the QMI Agency, i.e., the Quebec Media Inc. Agency, a media giant that, according to its mission statement “provides reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage...”
And that’s what we look for in the media, isn’t it? Reliability, completeness, up-to-the-minuteness?
Together, let’s see how QMI dishes out the news and discover what lessons we can learn here in Canada from the trials and tribulations of others.
More to follow.
***
First line of editorial:
“The welfare state has roared back to bite the British lion in the rump.”
Sounds exciting doesn’t it? But what’s that smell? Is it the lion's rump?
.
Deforest City Blues PT 2: News in London is by no means balanced
“The welfare state has roared back to bite the British lion in the rump.
“Ditto for the Irish economy.
“Saddled with massive debt and staggering under unaffordable social programs, both the British and the Irish are facing massive cuts.
So begins a recent editorial in our local paper, The London Free Press. (Dec. 28, 2010)
And shortly after I read it, I began to write this long but useful rant. (Some stuff you just shouldn’t hold inside!)
Though the headline, i.e., ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes,’ wasn’t a bad start (we all might be able to learn something from the debt crisis in Ireland and England), the first 3 sentences above left a lot to be desired, especially certain key words.
I.e., the welfare state... unaffordable social programs.
Does QMI Agency call this “reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage” as per their mission statement?
Don’t make me laugh. If social programs are the only or chief cause of fiscal problems in Britain and Ireland then I’ll eat my hat - the sexy straw number made in Caracas, Venezuela!
["The sexy straw number from Caracas": photo GH]
And if that’s the chief lesson Canada will learn from European debt woes then I’ll even eat the silk hat band.
The anonymous editorialist makes the point that “this country has weathered well the economic storm that has battered the U.S. and Europe. But we can’t sit smugly back on our laurels.”
Good for him or her. Smug is bad. Cocky, even worse.
But to suggest only the following remedies is way past smug, way beyond cocky.
“We cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten when we can't afford them.
“We must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control.
“We must get public sector pay hikes under control - now.”
Why, the writer’s list is so incomplete, so devoid of proper balance, it is little wonder the writer didn’t provide his or her name.
To conclude the above list by saying ‘they are ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in the faces of future generations’ is so much a joke the whole piece deserves to be posted on the comics page.
In fact, on the comics page, the same day, I found a Dilbert strip that delightfully puts the editorial in proper perspective.
Below is Scott Adams’ second panel of three.
["Corporations actually transfer their tax burden?": dilbert.com]
So, what’s the punch line?
Stay tuned.
.
Deforest City Blues PT 3: Any news about private sector short-comings?
If you want complete news don’t look to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind our local paper, The London Free Press.
For QMI to say, as they did in a recent editorial, that public sector programs and wages are the chief reasons Canada is headed toward the same problems facing England, Ireland Portugal, Greece and Spain, is almost comic.
I actually got more truth from a same-day Dilbert cartoon.
For some unnamed editor to write that social programs are unaffordable and “we cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten... we must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control... we must get public sector pay hikes under control - now... they are ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in the faces of future generations” is a far cry from “reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage” as per the QMI mission statement.
Why?
Because not one word is said about any expensive short comings in the private sector or business enterprises.
I can assure you, if there are time bombs in the public sector, there are far greater ones in the private.
For example:
Our own mayor recently expressed a wish to impose a special levy (and create an economic development fund) on local taxpayers so that monies could be collected and used to encourage local economic development.
(I wrote about it in my weekly column here.)
Here are the juicy bits:
“The city waives development charges — levied to help pay for the cost of growth — for new and expanding industries. Those charges totalled $9.5 million in 2009. Instead, taxpayers picked up the tab.”
“Homeowners are also paying $4 million a year in higher water rates than recommended, so business can get a break.”
“Those two policies alone amount to $13.5 million a year.” (‘Subsidies In Spotlight’ by Norman De Bono, The London Free Press, August 17, 2010)
If you can show me that London’s public programs and wages would be as unaffordable as QMI implies if our wise city fathers had $13.5 additional dollars at their disposal - annually! - then I’ll eat my hat.
And London is just one of dozens of medium-sized cities across Canada supporting private enterprise through public tax dollars. The total amount of subsidies, bailouts, no-interest loans, etc., must be in the billions.
I’d ask QMI Agency for a number but I’m sure they don’t know. They’re so busy painting the public sector black that they have no time to notice how quickly and deeply the private sector is bleeding the country dry.
Read ‘song for the blue ocean.’ Private fisheries are bleeding the oceans dry. (See ‘read This’ in right hand margin).
Read ‘The Politics of Oil.’ Private oil refineries are bleeding governments, whole countries dry.
Read ‘The Collapse of Globalism’ in which I recently read the following:
“It was noticed that from the second half of the 1990s on, two-thirds of American corporations paid no federal income tax. Yet corporate profits were soaring.
“Ninety percent of companies paid under 5 percent of their total income.
“In Equatorial Guinea, newly rich in oil, the national income is statistically sixth in the world. In reality the money goes elsewhere (i.e., not into the public purse, e.g., to help with public education) and the multinationals involved are complicit in its disappearance.”
On every corner of the globe private enterprise has degraded the land, sea, air and public purse for the sake of profit and power.
Yet QMI degrades the public sector, and like the upstanding private citizen that it is, forgets to mention any harm its fellow corporate friends have done to the public purse they all eat and benefit from.
According to a Dilbert cartoon featured on the same day as the unbalanced, incomplete editorial (note - I'm being very kind), there’s a common name for the type of sandwich that private enterprise wants the common man to eat every single day of the year.
["With a tip of the hat to Scott Adams and Dilbert.com"]
Can you guess its lovely name?
***
Some people might say, "Gee, I've never tasted a Sh_t Sandwich."
They would be wrong.
.
Deforest City Blues PT 4: Could QMI Agency be wrong? Biased?
If you want complete news don’t look to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind our local paper, The London Free Press.
Sometimes, a letter addressed to the editor contains more truth than a QMI editorial.
Case in point: Shortly after the editorial entitled ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes’ (Dec. 28, 2010) hit the streets, a reader responded with some valuable information.
Margaret Hoff wrote this letter:
“The QMI Agency editorial... concluded Canada must cut spending on social programs like full-day kindergarten so we won’t have the problems of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. None of these countries have full-day kindergarten programs.” (Jan. 3, 2011, London Free Press)
(Geesh. You would think a newspaper editor would know stuff like that. Sorry, I digress).
“The countries in Europe that have outstanding childcare programs are the countries that are bailing out the others. They have learned that spending money on quality childcare is an excellent investment that reduces other government costs.”
(Geesh. You would think a newspaper editor would know... sorry, I digress).
“The Ontario full-day learning system needs tweaking, but will demonstrate its value in years to come.”
(Geesh. Sorry).
I think QMI is short on details related to the good that public programs can accomplish and the high costs associated with subsidizing businesses across Canada because it’s too busy applying a thick coat of black paint, or ink, to the public sector.
Why so much black ink?
.
Deforest City Blues PT 5: Unbalanced dailies = unbalanced readership
Though many Londoners realize they shouldn’t look for complete news in The London Free Press, thanks to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind the paper, others eat up unbalanced editorials and parrot or champion editorials at many an opportunity.
A couple of days ago, Joe Carr wrote the following in a letter to the editor:
“Let’s get real. The economy is still in a fragile state. Provincial governments and municipalities are struggling to keep taxes under control and give relief to hard-pressed taxpayers.”
So far, so good. No need for me to crack the whip at poor Joe. He’s just venting.
And maybe he’s going to share a worthy idea related to tax control.
He says:
“It is time for the police, firefighters, teachers and others in that reasonably safe employment group to step up to the plate and help out. They are well paid (and deservedly so) and if they took a wage freeze for a year they would still be well paid.”
Certainly, the public servants mentioned would likely survive a wage freeze. But... and this is a big but... are public servants the only ones that should make a sacrifice to help “keep taxes under control and give some relief to hard-pressed taxpayers?”
There are other members of society too with money, some of them with bags of money, with some of the bags coming directly from taxpayers’ pockets.
Joe might change his tune if he heard more often that taxpayer subsidies to London developers and industries have been equal to $13.5 million annually in recent years. Joe might one day think that if he wants more bang for his buck for hard-pressed taxpayers he should look more critically at the private sector books, not the public’s.
According to recent news, one economic development group in London has an $800,000 surplus and still our Mayor thinks a special levy (upon the public, for the private sector) is in order to help with local economic development.
Mr. Carr laments, “Many (public servants) took large raises during the hardest portion of the recession...”
No mention is made of raises in the private sector or the ridiculously high level of compensation given to CEOs in private business at the same time.
He concludes, “It’s time to give the people who suffered through this scary time a chance to catch up. The economy needs these people to work and make a decent wage for the economy to fully recover.”
Excellent conclusion, in my humble opinion. I’m sure there’s not one among us who disagrees with helping people catch up or recover.
What I do disagree with, however, is the total absence of any mention of the equal, if not greater, responsibility of the private sector.
Can problems related to unemployment, wage loss and uncontrollable taxes only be laid at the feed of the public sector?
No.
QMI Agency is wrong. Joe Carr is wrong.
We’re all in this together, and where sacrifices and changes (perhaps to employment and tax structures) can be made, they should be made.
We’re also in this equally, and there is no one among us without equal and growing responsibility to right many wrongs that exist.
In conclusion, I say there's nothing wrong with news agencies, editorialists or letter writers saying that there is much the public sector can do better. Savings can be made, many efficiencies can be considered. But there is also much, if not more, that the private sector can do better and Londoners should be able to read about it in their dailies.
To use Joe Carr’s words, it’s time for the private sector to “step up to the plate and help out” as well, and QMI should recognize that fact and editorialize about that side of the equation as often as they slam the public sector.
I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better already.
***
Please click here to link to more Deforest City Blues
.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Follow Up: Are Conservatives fair to the average taxpayer?
I would say ‘no.’
I would also say I only bring this up because I produced a long and useful rant last week (some things you just shouldn’t hold inside) and a little news clip about Canada’s Federal Conservatives really seems to connect with that.
So, here’s the thing in a nutshell.
(Nutshell really seems to fit as well whenever I refer to Conservative John Baird. Sorry, I digress).
Related to toxic pollutants in the Alberta oilsands, then Environment Minister Baird said, “We acknowledge that we’ve got to up our game.”
[I’ll explain who has to up their game in a sec.]
“Industry’s got to do the same, the province has to as well. If there are costs, we will find a way to make it happen.” (Dec. 22, 2010, London Free Press)
["Let the little guy pick up the tab": Cartoon GH]
The news clip went on to say ‘how the government will cover those costs isn’t clear. While the (expert) panel recommended a user-pay system, Baird wouldn’t commit to charging industry.’
In other words, industry can kill the waters in Alberta but not have to pay costs related to upping the game in cleanup.
So, who will have to step up to the plate and help out?
Go look in the mirror. If you pay taxes, the person staring back at you will have to pay more.
Is the Conservative government fair to the average taxpayer?
No, and it gets worse.
Stay tuned.
***
Some editorialists and letter writers believe only the public sector needs to step up and help out.
.
I would also say I only bring this up because I produced a long and useful rant last week (some things you just shouldn’t hold inside) and a little news clip about Canada’s Federal Conservatives really seems to connect with that.
So, here’s the thing in a nutshell.
(Nutshell really seems to fit as well whenever I refer to Conservative John Baird. Sorry, I digress).
Related to toxic pollutants in the Alberta oilsands, then Environment Minister Baird said, “We acknowledge that we’ve got to up our game.”
[I’ll explain who has to up their game in a sec.]
“Industry’s got to do the same, the province has to as well. If there are costs, we will find a way to make it happen.” (Dec. 22, 2010, London Free Press)
["Let the little guy pick up the tab": Cartoon GH]
The news clip went on to say ‘how the government will cover those costs isn’t clear. While the (expert) panel recommended a user-pay system, Baird wouldn’t commit to charging industry.’
In other words, industry can kill the waters in Alberta but not have to pay costs related to upping the game in cleanup.
So, who will have to step up to the plate and help out?
Go look in the mirror. If you pay taxes, the person staring back at you will have to pay more.
Is the Conservative government fair to the average taxpayer?
No, and it gets worse.
Stay tuned.
***
Some editorialists and letter writers believe only the public sector needs to step up and help out.
.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Deforest City Blues PT 5: Where do Londoners get complete news?
Though many Londoners realize they shouldn’t look for complete news in The London Free Press, thanks to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind the paper, others eat up unbalanced editorials and parrot or champion editorial at many an opportunity.
A couple of days ago, Joe Carr wrote the following in a letter to the editor:
“Let’s get real. The economy is still in a fragile state. Provincial governments and municipalities are struggling to keep taxes under control and give relief to hard-pressed taxpayers.”
So far, so good. No need for me to crack the whip at poor Joe. He’s just venting.
And maybe he’s going to share a worthy idea related to tax control.
He says:
“It is time for the police, firefighters, teachers and others in that reasonably safe employment group to step up to the plate and help out. They are well paid (and deservedly so) and if they took a wage freeze for a year they would still be well paid.”
Certainly, the public servants mentioned would likely survive a wage freeze. But... and this is a big but... are public servants the only ones that should make a sacrifice to help “keep taxes under control and give some relief to hard-pressed taxpayers?”
There are other members of society too with money, some of them with bags of money, with some of the bags coming directly from taxpayers’ pockets.
Joe might change his tune if he heard more often that taxpayer subsidies to London developers and industries have been equal to $13.5 million annually in recent years. Joe might one day think that if he wants more bang for his buck for hard-pressed taxpayers he should look to the private sector, not the public.
According to recent news, one economic development group in London has an $800,000 surplus and still our Mayor thinks a special levy (upon the public, for the private sector) is in order to help with local economic development.
Mr. Carr laments, “Many (public servants) took large raises during the hardest portion of the recession...”
No mention is made of raises in the private sector or the ridiculously high level of compensation given to CEOs in private business at the same time.
He concludes, “It’s time to give the people who suffered through this scary time a chance to catch up. The economy needs these people to work and make a decent wage for the economy to fully recover.”
Excellent conclusion, in my humble opinion. I’m sure there’s not one among us who disagrees with helping people catch up or recover.
What I do disagree with, however, is the total absence of any mention of the equal, if not greater, responsibility of the private sector.
Can problems related to unemployment, wage loss and uncontrollable taxes only be laid at the feed of the public sector?
No.
Joe Carr is wrong. QMI Agency is wrong.
We’re all in this together, and where sacrifices and changes (perhaps to employment and tax structures) can be made, they should be made.
We’re also in this equally, and there is no one among us without equal and growing responsibility to right many wrongs that exist.
In conclusion, I say there's nothing wrong with news agencies, editorialists or letter writers saying that there is much the public sector can do better. Savings can be made, many efficiencies can be considered. But there is also much, if not more, that the private sector can do better and Londoners should be able to read about it in their dailies.
To use Joe Carr’s words, it’s time for the private sector to “step up to the plate and help out” as well, and QMI should recognize that fact and editorialize about that side of the equation as often as they slam the public sector.
I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better already.
***
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 1 here.
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 2 here.
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 3 here.
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 4 here.
.
A couple of days ago, Joe Carr wrote the following in a letter to the editor:
“Let’s get real. The economy is still in a fragile state. Provincial governments and municipalities are struggling to keep taxes under control and give relief to hard-pressed taxpayers.”
So far, so good. No need for me to crack the whip at poor Joe. He’s just venting.
And maybe he’s going to share a worthy idea related to tax control.
He says:
“It is time for the police, firefighters, teachers and others in that reasonably safe employment group to step up to the plate and help out. They are well paid (and deservedly so) and if they took a wage freeze for a year they would still be well paid.”
Certainly, the public servants mentioned would likely survive a wage freeze. But... and this is a big but... are public servants the only ones that should make a sacrifice to help “keep taxes under control and give some relief to hard-pressed taxpayers?”
There are other members of society too with money, some of them with bags of money, with some of the bags coming directly from taxpayers’ pockets.
Joe might change his tune if he heard more often that taxpayer subsidies to London developers and industries have been equal to $13.5 million annually in recent years. Joe might one day think that if he wants more bang for his buck for hard-pressed taxpayers he should look to the private sector, not the public.
According to recent news, one economic development group in London has an $800,000 surplus and still our Mayor thinks a special levy (upon the public, for the private sector) is in order to help with local economic development.
Mr. Carr laments, “Many (public servants) took large raises during the hardest portion of the recession...”
No mention is made of raises in the private sector or the ridiculously high level of compensation given to CEOs in private business at the same time.
He concludes, “It’s time to give the people who suffered through this scary time a chance to catch up. The economy needs these people to work and make a decent wage for the economy to fully recover.”
Excellent conclusion, in my humble opinion. I’m sure there’s not one among us who disagrees with helping people catch up or recover.
What I do disagree with, however, is the total absence of any mention of the equal, if not greater, responsibility of the private sector.
Can problems related to unemployment, wage loss and uncontrollable taxes only be laid at the feed of the public sector?
No.
Joe Carr is wrong. QMI Agency is wrong.
We’re all in this together, and where sacrifices and changes (perhaps to employment and tax structures) can be made, they should be made.
We’re also in this equally, and there is no one among us without equal and growing responsibility to right many wrongs that exist.
In conclusion, I say there's nothing wrong with news agencies, editorialists or letter writers saying that there is much the public sector can do better. Savings can be made, many efficiencies can be considered. But there is also much, if not more, that the private sector can do better and Londoners should be able to read about it in their dailies.
To use Joe Carr’s words, it’s time for the private sector to “step up to the plate and help out” as well, and QMI should recognize that fact and editorialize about that side of the equation as often as they slam the public sector.
I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better already.
***
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 1 here.
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 2 here.
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 3 here.
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 4 here.
.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Deforest City Blues PT 3: Where do Londoners get complete news?
If you want complete news don’t look to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind our local paper, The London Free Press.
For QMI to say, as they did in a recent editorial entitled ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes’ (Dec. 28, 2010), that public sector programs and wages are the chief reasons Canada is headed toward the same problems facing England, Ireland Portugal, Greece and Spain, is almost comic.
I actually got more truth from a same-day Dilbert cartoon.
["Final panel and punch line below"]
For some unnamed editor to write that social programs are unaffordable and “we cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten... we must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control... we must get public sector pay hikes under control - now... they are ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in the faces of future generations” is a far cry from “reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage” as per the QMI mission statement.
Why?
Because not one word is said about any expensive short comings in the private sector or business enterprises.
I can assure you, if there are time bombs in the public sector, there are far greater ones in the private.
For example:
Our own mayor recently expressed a wish to impose a special levy (and create an economic development fund) on local taxpayers so that monies could be collected and used to encourage local economic development.
(I wrote about it in my blog here.)
(I wrote about it in my weekly column here.)
Here are the juicy bits:
“The city waives development charges — levied to help pay for the cost of growth — for new and expanding industries. Those charges totalled $9.5 million in 2009. Instead, taxpayers picked up the tab.”
“Homeowners are also paying $4 million a year in higher water rates than recommended, so business can get a break.”
“Those two policies alone amount to $13.5 million a year.” (‘Subsidies In Spotlight’ by Norman De Bono, The London Free Press, August 17, 2010)
If you can show me that London’s public programs and wages would be as unaffordable as QMI implies if our wise city fathers had $13.5 additional dollars at their disposal - annually! - then I’ll eat my hat.
["Trust me. The hat is safe": photo GH]
And London is just one of dozens of medium-sized cities across Canada supporting private enterprise through public tax dollars. The total amount of subsidies, bailouts, no-interest loans, etc., must be in the billions.
I’d ask QMI Agency for a number but I’m sure they don’t know. They’re so busy painting the public sector black that they have no time to notice how quickly and deeply the private sector is bleeding the country dry.
Read ‘song for the blue ocean.’ (See ‘read This’ in right hand margin). Private fisheries are bleeding the oceans dry.
Read ‘The Politics of Oil.’ Private oil refineries are bleeding governments, whole countries dry.
Read ‘The Collapse of Globalism’ in which I recently read the following:
“It was noticed that from the second half of the 1990s on, two-thirds of American corporations paid no federal income tax. Yet corporate profits were soaring.
“Ninety percent of companies paid under 5 percent of their total income.
“In Equatorial Guinea, newly rich in oil, the national income is statistically sixth in the world. In reality the money goes elsewhere (i.e., not into the public purse, e.g., to help with public education) and the multinationals involved are complicit in its disappearance.”
On every corner of the globe private enterprise has degraded the land, sea, air and public purse for the sake of profit and power.
Yet QMI degrades the public sector, and like the upstanding private citizen that it is, forgets to mention any harm its fellow corporate friends have done to the public purse they all eat and benefit from.
According to a Dilbert cartoon featured on the same day as the unbalanced, incomplete editorial (note - I'm being very kind), there’s a common name for the type of sandwich that private enterprise wants the common man to eat every single day of the year.
["With a tip of the hat to Scott Adams and Dilbert.com"]
Can you guess its lovely name?
***
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 1 here.
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 2 here.
Some common men will say, "I've never tasted a Sh_t Sandwich."
They would be wrong.
.
For QMI to say, as they did in a recent editorial entitled ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes’ (Dec. 28, 2010), that public sector programs and wages are the chief reasons Canada is headed toward the same problems facing England, Ireland Portugal, Greece and Spain, is almost comic.
I actually got more truth from a same-day Dilbert cartoon.
["Final panel and punch line below"]
For some unnamed editor to write that social programs are unaffordable and “we cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten... we must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control... we must get public sector pay hikes under control - now... they are ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in the faces of future generations” is a far cry from “reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage” as per the QMI mission statement.
Why?
Because not one word is said about any expensive short comings in the private sector or business enterprises.
I can assure you, if there are time bombs in the public sector, there are far greater ones in the private.
For example:
Our own mayor recently expressed a wish to impose a special levy (and create an economic development fund) on local taxpayers so that monies could be collected and used to encourage local economic development.
(I wrote about it in my blog here.)
(I wrote about it in my weekly column here.)
Here are the juicy bits:
“The city waives development charges — levied to help pay for the cost of growth — for new and expanding industries. Those charges totalled $9.5 million in 2009. Instead, taxpayers picked up the tab.”
“Homeowners are also paying $4 million a year in higher water rates than recommended, so business can get a break.”
“Those two policies alone amount to $13.5 million a year.” (‘Subsidies In Spotlight’ by Norman De Bono, The London Free Press, August 17, 2010)
If you can show me that London’s public programs and wages would be as unaffordable as QMI implies if our wise city fathers had $13.5 additional dollars at their disposal - annually! - then I’ll eat my hat.
["Trust me. The hat is safe": photo GH]
And London is just one of dozens of medium-sized cities across Canada supporting private enterprise through public tax dollars. The total amount of subsidies, bailouts, no-interest loans, etc., must be in the billions.
I’d ask QMI Agency for a number but I’m sure they don’t know. They’re so busy painting the public sector black that they have no time to notice how quickly and deeply the private sector is bleeding the country dry.
Read ‘song for the blue ocean.’ (See ‘read This’ in right hand margin). Private fisheries are bleeding the oceans dry.
Read ‘The Politics of Oil.’ Private oil refineries are bleeding governments, whole countries dry.
Read ‘The Collapse of Globalism’ in which I recently read the following:
“It was noticed that from the second half of the 1990s on, two-thirds of American corporations paid no federal income tax. Yet corporate profits were soaring.
“Ninety percent of companies paid under 5 percent of their total income.
“In Equatorial Guinea, newly rich in oil, the national income is statistically sixth in the world. In reality the money goes elsewhere (i.e., not into the public purse, e.g., to help with public education) and the multinationals involved are complicit in its disappearance.”
On every corner of the globe private enterprise has degraded the land, sea, air and public purse for the sake of profit and power.
Yet QMI degrades the public sector, and like the upstanding private citizen that it is, forgets to mention any harm its fellow corporate friends have done to the public purse they all eat and benefit from.
According to a Dilbert cartoon featured on the same day as the unbalanced, incomplete editorial (note - I'm being very kind), there’s a common name for the type of sandwich that private enterprise wants the common man to eat every single day of the year.
["With a tip of the hat to Scott Adams and Dilbert.com"]
Can you guess its lovely name?
***
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 1 here.
Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 2 here.
Some common men will say, "I've never tasted a Sh_t Sandwich."
They would be wrong.
.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
song for the blue ocean PT 2: More than about fish
The book 'song for the blue ocean' is more than about fish - or the decline and destruction of fish.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the book is about forests as well - and the decline and destruction of forests.
Though extremely well-written, and highly recommended, the book could easily have been called 'trouble for the blue ocean.'
Why so many pages, so much information about forests in a book about fish?
I read the following about deforestation:
"The implications of deforestation (in the Pacific North-west) went far beyond the (spotted) owl, but the owl attracted more than its share of headlines and attention. Many species suffered from forest destruction - salmon included. Yet in the din over the owl even conservationists almost totally overlooked the salmon who were quietly blinking out in run after run, stream after stream." (pg. 173)
[Def'n - salmon run; a location in a river where salmon spawn and mature before entering the ocean; a run can be miles long]
[Def'n - blinking out; a quiet way of saying dying out, or disappearing from our radar screen]
And why do salmon blink out after forests are destroyed?
Carl Safina writes:
"Over a clear-cut several square miles in extent, Fran (pilot) points out a draw where the land has been sliding (eroding) into a creek, saying, "It hurts fish by clogging the gravels."
"Silt can be murder on salmon eggs, slowing water circulation and thus strangling salmon embryos. Much of the silt comes from log roads. No one in the world builds more roads than the U.S. Forest Service: 360,000 miles of roads (and growing) lace and filigree our national forests - seven times the aggregate length of America's interstate highway system." (pg. 167)
On those roads, trees are delivered to waiting mills and ships. Jobs leave the country by those roads. (US tax dollars at work).
And because of those roads a salmon industry is being bludgeoned. More jobs are leaving - on the US tax payers' dime.
'song for the blue ocean' is definitely more than about fish.
***
I wonder if the same problems can be seen in Canada, i.e., over-fishing, over-foresting, sending jobs out of the country?
Any good books out there about the Canadian resource and job scene?
.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the book is about forests as well - and the decline and destruction of forests.
Though extremely well-written, and highly recommended, the book could easily have been called 'trouble for the blue ocean.'
Why so many pages, so much information about forests in a book about fish?
I read the following about deforestation:
"The implications of deforestation (in the Pacific North-west) went far beyond the (spotted) owl, but the owl attracted more than its share of headlines and attention. Many species suffered from forest destruction - salmon included. Yet in the din over the owl even conservationists almost totally overlooked the salmon who were quietly blinking out in run after run, stream after stream." (pg. 173)
[Def'n - salmon run; a location in a river where salmon spawn and mature before entering the ocean; a run can be miles long]
[Def'n - blinking out; a quiet way of saying dying out, or disappearing from our radar screen]
And why do salmon blink out after forests are destroyed?
Carl Safina writes:
"Over a clear-cut several square miles in extent, Fran (pilot) points out a draw where the land has been sliding (eroding) into a creek, saying, "It hurts fish by clogging the gravels."
"Silt can be murder on salmon eggs, slowing water circulation and thus strangling salmon embryos. Much of the silt comes from log roads. No one in the world builds more roads than the U.S. Forest Service: 360,000 miles of roads (and growing) lace and filigree our national forests - seven times the aggregate length of America's interstate highway system." (pg. 167)
On those roads, trees are delivered to waiting mills and ships. Jobs leave the country by those roads. (US tax dollars at work).
And because of those roads a salmon industry is being bludgeoned. More jobs are leaving - on the US tax payers' dime.
'song for the blue ocean' is definitely more than about fish.
***
I wonder if the same problems can be seen in Canada, i.e., over-fishing, over-foresting, sending jobs out of the country?
Any good books out there about the Canadian resource and job scene?
.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Letter to the Editor: Pharmacies in jeopardy? Potash
The notion that pharmacies are in jeopardy because of the Ontario government’s plan to restructure funding is a huge stinky pile of potash.
Robert Awad’s recent letter is one that smells a great deal like potash - and self-interest, in my opinion.
He begins:
“The McGuinty government’s announcement of massive funding cuts to community pharmacies will seriously hurt front-line health care in London.... the government is cutting $1 billion a year out of pharmacy funding...”
Put on the brakes right there, Robert.
The government plan will cut the so-called professional allowances, i.e., cash paid to pharmacists by generic drug companies to stock their products, aka influence money, grease on the skids, bribes.
["Ann would say grease is bad for business"]
The grease amounts to $750 million a year for pharmacies, allowing them to grow bigger and fatter than necessary to deliver meds over the counter.
The government plan will also boost dispensing fees by $1 at most pharmacies and add $150 million for direct patient services, e.g., flu shots.
Though Mr. Awad says “this is a reckless attempt to reduce its deficit on the backs of patients in London and across Ontario,” I say it’s about time the giant pharmaceutical companies had less say as to what gets pushed across the counter, thereby easing costs for those who need it most.
And we truly need to ease costs. (Please click here to read about the drug use of Canadian seniors).
What do you think?
.
Robert Awad’s recent letter is one that smells a great deal like potash - and self-interest, in my opinion.
He begins:
“The McGuinty government’s announcement of massive funding cuts to community pharmacies will seriously hurt front-line health care in London.... the government is cutting $1 billion a year out of pharmacy funding...”
Put on the brakes right there, Robert.
The government plan will cut the so-called professional allowances, i.e., cash paid to pharmacists by generic drug companies to stock their products, aka influence money, grease on the skids, bribes.
["Ann would say grease is bad for business"]
The grease amounts to $750 million a year for pharmacies, allowing them to grow bigger and fatter than necessary to deliver meds over the counter.
The government plan will also boost dispensing fees by $1 at most pharmacies and add $150 million for direct patient services, e.g., flu shots.
Though Mr. Awad says “this is a reckless attempt to reduce its deficit on the backs of patients in London and across Ontario,” I say it’s about time the giant pharmaceutical companies had less say as to what gets pushed across the counter, thereby easing costs for those who need it most.
And we truly need to ease costs. (Please click here to read about the drug use of Canadian seniors).
What do you think?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)