What about the poor?

When I read personal stories by Americans who have been hit hard by the economic meltdown like this, I can't help but have a visceral reaction to this type of obscene campaign spending:

Obama, who raised a record $150million in September, has bought ads just about everywhere – even in the virtual world of Xbox video games. At 8 p.m. tomorrow, he will run a 30-minute commercial on NBC, CBS and FOX. Cost: about $3million.

I know this race is still close and, with less than a week to go, getting the message out is crucial for both candidates but what would speak more loudly? Obama yapping on teevee for half and hour or donating that $3 million to charity to help the poor?

Oh but there's a payoff if he wins, his supporters will surely tell you. He plans to lower taxes for some 95% of working families which, as Bloomberg's article points out:

The ``working'' caveat turns out to be crucial: The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that, including tax filers with no wages or business income, 81 percent would get a tax cut.

Still, that sounds like good news, doesn't it? Perhaps until you try out a few examples on Obama's tax cut calculator. Let's say you're a single parent with 2 children and your adjusted gross income is $15,000. Your tax savings under Obama's plan would amount to $486.21 which, according to that site, is much more than the $18.69 you'd get under McCain. Quite the difference - but with the price of absolutely everything skyrocketing these days, how much of a difference would $486.21 make in that single parent's life? And don't they have the right to be just a little pissed off at this $3 million ad buy? And what about that $600 million Obama has spent on his campaign?

Having been a poor single parent, I can tell you exactly what it feels like to drown in financial depression while government decides to throw you a sponge as if that's some sort of a life-saving device.

I'm not letting McCain off the hook here - a man who can barely get the phrase "middle class" out of his mouth without choking on his spit. But I do expect more from a presidential candidate who calls himself a progressive and acts as if he alone will lift the struggling out of the stormy seas to stop them from perishing in this flood of financial ruin.

Sure, he has a tax plan (and don't get me started on his refusal to push for true universal health care) but, in these times when there's a global recession looming and he pledges to make more war in Afghanistan, just how much of his platform will he be able to accomplish? And if he's so focused on helping the middle class, what will happen to those who are already living below the poverty line? They seem to have been lost in all of this. Many of them have bought the "hope" and "change" messages and will cast their votes for Obama. But it seems, at this point, that's really all they have left. Frankly, it's just an insult to think that that's enough when the man they're voting for blows another $3 million to promote himself.
 

Canadian Election Watch - Day 9

The economy is the hot topic du jour, of course, with the US meltdown and the TSX closing the day at a loss of 500+ points. The Globe & Mail (coincidentally?) takes a look at the economic policies of the Liberals and Conservatives as part of their weekly series identifying various policy differences.

Note: I had written a section here about how anyone should have been able to predict the breach of the economic levees based on fiscally irresponsible conservative/centrist economic policies that historically have not worked and that have harmed Joe and Jane Average Citizen, but Blogger ate that part of my draft so I'm not writing it again. You'll get the drift from the rest of my post though and it did leave this link at the end of that bit intact: Free government cheese? That pretty much sums it up.

Now, back to that G&M article.

Tory cuts to the goods and services tax aside, in recent election campaigns the two parties have differed in the economic bells and whistles, but their general approaches to fiscal policy have been similar. Governments of the past decade have enjoyed healthy surpluses, and could promise new spending, tax cuts and improved transfers to the provinces without worrying much about where the money would come from.

Now, the global economy is on the brink of recession, Canada's economy has stalled and the surplus is slim. Some economists believe a further slide in the price of oil will push Ottawa into deficit for the first time since 1997. Politicians can no longer promise the world - especially if, like both the Tories and the Liberals, they also promise to stay out of the red.

As the economy zooms to the top of the list of public concerns, voters can pick, for the first time in over a decade, between two contrasting visions of how the government should interact with the economy. Well aware of the contrast, the parties intend to make as much political hay as they can.

We've seen the pattern here and in the US: left-leaning governments generally create surpluses (from all of those scary taxes) while the past few decades have seen right-leaning parties squandering them while cutting vital social programs, leaving their huge messes for someone else to clean up. It's become as predictable a cycle and the sun rising and setting.

If you're paying attention to the American election, you'll know that McCain is trying to pretend that his economic policies differ enough from the Bush administration's to make him The Reformer™. The problem with that, of course, is that he buys conservative economic policies in theory (whether he knows it or not since he admits he really doesn't know much about the economy to begin with) and, as much as he'd like to bring his style of change to Washington, he'd be fought tooth and nail every step of the way by the corporate interests and lobby groups that expect something in return for their undying support of the Republican party. I seriously doubt Mr So-called Maverick could stand up enough against the powers that be to make a dent in the status quo. Not that I think Obama stands much of a chance either. His willingness to "compromise" has shown that he can be persuaded to change his mind about basic liberal principles. No matter who wins, it'll either be more centrism or more right-leaning centrism.

As for their Canadian counterparts, we've already seen the ramifications of the broken income trust promise the Conservatives made the last time around. Apparently, they thought they could make up for that loss of billions for Canadians by slashing the GST a tad. A bandaid solution - just as last week's announcement of a diesel tax cut was yet another attempted stop gap measure that will be of little use in the long run.

What can we expect from the Conservatives this time? Witness the spin:

At the heart of the Conservatives' economic thrust is tax reduction. The Tories are campaigning on the GST cut already implemented, as well as their more recent cuts to income and corporate taxes. By kicking off their campaign with the diesel tax announcement, they're suggesting that the plethora of small but targeted tax cuts that worked well for them in the last election will likely figure prominently again.

Tax cuts, they say, have protected the Canadian economy from the U.S. downturn. Some troubled sectors may require direct measures on a short-term basis, but the preference is for permanent tax cuts, explained Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister and MP running for re-election in Whitby, Ont.

"If we talk about fiscal and tax policy, we approach things in a fundamental, permanent way," he said in an interview. One-time subsidies "thrown at" troubled parts of the economy are often a waste of money, he argued.

"I'm not interested in that sort of ad hoc activity," he said, adding that the millions handed to the auto sector in the days before the election call came from a previously announced fund to spur innovation and does not constitute a subsidy.

Whatever you say there, Jim. Perhaps Mr Flaherty would like to explain why other parts of the manufacturing sector have been treated so brutally by his government. Where's their "innovation" investment? Flaherty and Steve will have a hard time convincing Ontarions and Quebecers that Conservative policies have helped their economic status.

The projected economic sag deepens in the other major cities of central Canada with Ottawa-Gatineau on track to post growth of only 1.8 per cent, its weakest performance in more than a decade, despite strong public-sector employment as the high-tech sector expansion has stalled and construction activity has been weak.

Montreal is expected to suffer its weakest growth in half a decade at 1.7 per cent, as its manufacturing sector struggles despite strength in the aerospace sector, and in its construction and services industries.

Toronto's manufacturing sector is also expected to fall again this year, offsetting solid construction activity and domestic demand, and limiting growth in its giant diversified economy to an anemic 1.3 per cent

Hamilton, meanwhile, will post the weakest growth of the cities covered in the latest outlook at 0.3 per cent, its worst performance since the early 1990s.

While the growth of cities in Western Canada has been outpacing those in the rest of the country most of the this decade, a separate report by a Western-based think-tank also released Monday, raised questions about whether those cities will have the long-term financing to sustain their expansions.

"The future fiscal sustainability of the West's big cities remains in doubt," said Casey Vander Ploeg, author of the report by the Canada West Foundation. "A lot depends on whether or not recently increased provincial and federal support for infrastructure will be sustained over the long-term and whether or not those governments are going to stay in the urban infrastructure game for the duration."

There are huge economic challenges ahead and the Conservatives have yet to prove that their plans will work to suit the changing landscape in this country.

On the other side of the coin we have the Liberals whose biggest obstacle right now is selling their carbon tax idea to the Canadian public. If they can't clearly and succinctly articulate exactly how their plan works - which I don't think they've done so far - they simply won't be able to sell it. The Cons, as they always do, simply cast the Liberals as the "tax and spend" party and for some Canadians, that seems to be enough of a reason not to support them. The philosophy of "tax and spend" however, has certainly not yielded the kind of economic collapse that Conservative (so-called "prudent") policies have wrought. That's where the disconnect lays in the minds of voters who view the word "tax" as evil - who refuse to admit that taxes are necessary to keep the country going. How else would we pay for our infrastructure, education programs, health care and so many other things? And just how does the average Canadian tax payer get ahead when tax cuts are going to corporations? That's the trickle down theory again. Cut them slack and they'll create more jobs unless, that is, they go bankrupt or use creative accounting while discouraging unionization to keep themselves afloat.

Does our tax system need to be reformed? Yes. You can't trust the Cons to do that in any meaningful way for Joe and Jane Average Canadian though and the Liberals need to improve their messaging. This kind of summary is not enough:

At the centre of the Liberals' fiscal proposals is a $15-billion shuffle of taxes and spending in the hopes of tackling global warming, cutting income tax and alleviating poverty at the same time.

Their Green Shift proposal would thrust the federal government's fiscal power into the centre of business operations, by imposing a carbon tax on greenhouse-gas emitters. The plan fully expects corporations to pass along the costs of the tax to consumers. And to help consumers and companies cover the cost, the Liberals would use their carbon-tax revenue to cut personal and corporate income tax.

The plan would likely be the biggest tax reform seen in decades in Canada, economists say.

It's not that I disagree with this plan. It's that I, along with too many others, need to know the direct impact it will have on my life and my economic status (ie. poverty).

The G&M article concludes with a handy summary of the fiscal policies of the two major parties. But, as I've written here before - and as we've seen again and again - what we see on paper often either vanishes or changes completely once the winning party takes over. I do know this, however: I would not trust a Conservative government to handle the current economic slowdown, recession, or whatever you'd like to call it and I'm not convinced that the centrist Liberals will differ enough and as quickly as necessary to really have an impact.

Put me in the "income redistribution" ie. Godless commie column. Something needs to change. We're a rich enough country to pull all of our poor out of poverty. We have absolutely no will to do it though. Since the centrists are so fond of the middle class, you'd think that boosting the poor a notch to actually make it to that economic level would be a winning strategy - a larger tax base with more spending and investment power. As it stands, however, it's just another day in paradise for far too many of us (especially those of us who are chronically ill) - in both countries. Hope? Change? I'm not seeing it.
 

Canadian News Roundup

Busy getting ready to move next week but these stories caught my eye:

- Pigs do fly. Steve is going to investigate his bff Brian Mulroney. He didn't exactly have much of a choice though, did he? (h/t penlan)

- If elected, Dion vows to slash poverty rates. He'd better have a different plan than the last Liberal government or that's just another empty promise. (Have you seen those ridiculously immature ads being run to mock Dion? Did the election campaign start and I missed it or what? If the Conservatives think they have to run ads like that during the off-season, that shows they must be a tad scared of what might happen to them when the next election is really called. They're looking desperate, don't you think?)

- Speaking of ads, I don't know who produced this video clip in response to the immoral Conservatives refusing to seek clemency for Canadians on death row in countries that are democracies (and are they kidding thinking the US is anything resembling a democracy these days with its horrendous human and civil rights abuses and a boy king at the helm who relished his days executing people in Texas?), but kudos to whoever took the time to put the clip together. And speaking of the death penalty, if you missed Bill Moyers' Journal on Friday nite, watch the interview with Thomas Cahill online. It's definitely worth seeing.

- The Center for Constitutional Rights (please visit their site) has launched Maher Arar's appeal but they'll have to get past the "national security" hurdle that resulted in the case being dismissed in a lower court. On another front in this case:

NEW YORK - Gasps broke out in a U.S. federal appeals court Friday as a U.S. government lawyer spoke of Maher Arar's "unequivocal membership of al-Qaida."

One of the court's three sitting judges echoed the reaction of many in the public gallery, declaring the statement stunned him too.

Not only has a Canadian judicial inquiry cleared Arar of having any terrorism links, but U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has admitted the U.S. government did not properly handle his case.

"It was kind of a shocking statement with which to start," Judge Robert Sack told Dennis Barghaan, one of three government attorneys opposing Arar's bid to see his lawsuit against the U.S. government reinstated.

Arar lawyer Maria Lahood hinted outside the courtroom the judge's reaction bodes well for Arar's case.

"To me, it was a sign the judge knew this was an innocent man," she said.

One can only guess what kind of bullshit "evidence" has been manufactured to back up that supposed al Qaeda link.

- New Khadr witness discovered. That could be a major development. In the meantime, our useless federal government is still leaving Omar Khadr to rot in Gitmo. If it had any concern for "Canada's standing in the world" (which it claims to when it defends continuing our presence in Afghanistan), it would actually try to help Khadr get out of legal limbo. In this case though, pigs won't be flying anytime soon.

- Looking for an old movie to rent this weekend? If you haven't seen it (and I'm sure some of you young whippersnappers out there haven't), check out In the Name of the Father. Caution: It will remind you of the Bush regime. Prepare to be infuriated.

If you live in Calgary, I'm looking for 3 (free) things: a wireless router for the new place, a dvd player (I've never owned one besides the one I have in this used laptop I recently got - really) and a flat panel monitor (any size) to replace my gargantuan 21" monitor that's as heavy as a teevee and which I'll either trade or give away. Drop me a line. My e-mail's up there on the left and the bonus, of course, is that you'd get to meet anonymous me in real life (oh how exciting!!). No stalkers please. My life is already interesting enough, thanks. (And yes, I belong to Freecycle™ and have posted wanted ads there and elsewhere).

I also found a local guy who's into recycling/refurbishing computer stuff that he then gives away to those in need. Just gave away my old 486 that I was using as a footstool. Glad someone can use it for its real purpose. I used it for years. (Yes, I'm still stuck in the 90s). If you want his number, let me know.

One last thing, my movers collect and donate things for Afghan/Pakistani refugees settling in the Calgary area. If you have something to donate, e-mail me and I'll forward your e-mail to them. I know someone did e-mail me the last time I mentioned them but I lost the e-mail. Sorry.
 

October 17th: International Day for the Eradication of Poverty

But hey, it's not like there are actually any really poor people in North America or, if they do exist:

...(as we saw in Katrina) today's so-called poor, with their dependent/entitlement/victim mentality, are a threat to national security.

This coming from a so-called "Catholic" woman who lived on government disability benefits for 4 years for one of the illnesses I have: lupus. Ah but she's different, you see. If she was "poor" then, it's because she had a legitimate illness/reason which, according to her, no one else who's poor really does. On top of that:

In one of the most compelling essays in the book, she describes the frustration she felt while waiting for her first disability interview at a Family Benefits office in Toronto. “I hated that office,” she writes. “And as ashamed as I am to admit it, most of all I hated the shabby, beaten-down clients.... When my interview was over, I hoped for a sudden deus ex machina, a lightning-flash vision that would reveal, through my tears, Christ in the faces of the frozen, unblinking clients I was leaving behind. But instead of God’s voice, the only sound was the scratchy bellow of another client’s name being mispronounced over the loudspeaker.”

Now, I'm sure I don't need to get into a deep theological or psychological discussion here about how those clients were mirror images of herself - thus reflecting her own shame about being poor, sick and needy- but when someone like Shaidle (and she is hardly alone) rides with that self-hatred to the point where she can't even admit that poor people exist (and I urge you to read that first linked post to get into the mind of that right-wing "Christian" who would make Jesus* cringe), it's not hard to understand why there is still so much poverty on a global scale because the first step to eradicating it is for people to actually care about the poor. You won't do that if you're busy hating them and yourself while standing on your mile-high pulpit of self-righteousness. No wonder we're hardly getting anywhere.

Anyway, for more information about the significance of this day, visit the official UN site. You can also review the UN's Millennium Development Goals for the eradication of poverty and a September, 2007 update here.

For information about what's going on in my neck of the woods - Calgary, check out the Poverty Reduction Coalition.

Poverty is about a lack of opportunities and viable choices. That can change and we can all help - even those of us who are currently poor as well.

* If "Jesus" existed

Related:

Wars in Africa wipe out aid gains
Make Poverty History (Canada)
(UK) PM 'abandoned' child poverty pledge
Keep tax cuts, end 'disgrace' of poverty, union rally tells Harper
3 million expected to ‘Stand Up, Speak Out’ against poverty (Philippines)
More than one in 10 Aussies 'in poverty'
Father of microloans sees end to poverty
'1.3bn People Live Below Poverty Line'
Other bloggers writing about this day.
 

'Canada can no longer afford homelessness'

That's the correct conclusion that Gordon Laird of Calgary's Sheldon Chumir Foundation reached in his piece about how much homelessness costs our country.

The coldest, deadliest nights of the year are now behind us. But the cost of homelessness isn't. According to a new report from the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, Shelter: Homelessness in a Growth Economy, homelessness is costing Canadian taxpayers $4.5 billion to $6 billion a year.

Canada in 2007 collectively spends more managing homelessness than it spends on international development ($4.1 billion) or on annual debt reduction ($3 billion). In fact, the cost of homelessness in Canada is comparable to the cost of the $4.35 billion 2006 GST tax cut and the entire 2007 environment plan on climate change, fresh water and wildlife conservation.

Since the early 1990s, Canada's main response to homelessness has been to build new emergency shelter beds and fund front-line services to help contain and warehouse a growing pool of homeless Canadians.

It hasn't worked. Welfare services, municipal services, provincial health-care systems and the non-profit sector have been left to take up the slack for the estimated 300,000 homeless people as well as the upwards of 2.7 million low-income Canadians who now face housing affordability problems.

This nation's decade of relative inaction on homelessness, from 1993 to 2004, cost Canadian taxpayers an estimated $49.5 billion, across all services and jurisdictions.

All levels of government have shown a lack of leadership. Most provincial governments, for example, inadequately fund welfare, making it difficult, if not impossible, for recipients to find a place to live in our soaring real estate markets. Some of these same people then wind up in homeless shelters funded by all three levels of government. Taxpayers are paying at least twice and still we have homelessness.

While Canada's economy is booming, poverty is actually increasing. It was assumed that the economic boom would benefit all Canadians, but the evidence shows that the income gap is actually growing and affordable housing is harder to find. CIBC World Markets predicts that the average Canadian housing price will double by 2026.

Poverty is now the leading cause of homelessness in Canada, trumping substance abuse and mental illness. Canada's "new homeless" – families, women, students, immigrants, aboriginals – are simply low-income Canadians who need affordable housing.

Many governments, both here and abroad, are championing the notion of "Housing First," that is, immediately addressing housing needs through rent supplements. It has finally been recognized that homeless shelters are effective only as a short-term measure.

When I started working with the homeless in Calgary back in the early 90s after the last oil boom and bust, I suddenly realized how well hidden they'd been - stashed away in shelters, treatment centers, jails, short-term programs, hospitals, church basements, motels, or in parks or other areas where I had not ventured often, sleeping on someone's couch for a nite or a week, staying with family temporarily - very much invisible. And the stereotypical homeless person - the bottle picker or alcoholic - was definitely in the minority but was and is the most visible.

The number of homeless people who were working homeless back then hovered around 45% - a stat unfamiliar to most Calgarians at that time, I suspect. I haven't looked at the latest numbers here but considering the availability of low-wage jobs available here which, unfortunately, are the type of jobs that suit many homeless peoples' skill sets or stage in life, I'd guess that number has risen. The disconnect comes between the cost of living and those low wages.

Then there are the sick. I had a homeless client who went in for kidney dialysis regularly, another one with severe gout, several diabetics and epileptics, one with "wet brain" (Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome) and then there were the mentally ill, of course. People who were or should have been receiving government disability benefits. But those payments are not enough anyway, leaving too many housed sick people (and I know this firsthand) at an almost constant risk for homelessness because landlords typically ask for the first month's rent and a security deposit. (Here's an idea of how much that can cost at this time.)

It should come as no surprise that the poor are hardest hit during boom times: the cost of everything skyrockets because of "supply and demand". And, as we saw with the failure of Reagan's Trickle Down economics theory, the fact that more people are making more money definitely does not end up helping the disadvantaged.

Laird is right, the more homeless there are, the more services they need and that does cost more money - obviously. There are the problems that led to people becoming homeless along with the new problems caused by ending up homeless - a huge load for some people to deal with before they can reclaim any sort of "normal" life again. Those services, in this province, have mainly been surrendered to the private sector while the PC government stubbornly refused to raise welfare rates during the 1990s or to provide any extra services at all. (At that time, the allotment for a single, employable person was ~$400/month - unconscionable).

Along with increased homelessness over the years, the NIMBY (Not in MY Backyard) attitude grew here - even in the dead of the coldest winters when the City of Calgary needed to make more emergency shelter beds available to avoid having homeless people dying from exposure. I recall an interview with one fearless campaigner who absolutely refused to consider allowing a local empty building in her neighbourhood to be used because she feared for her safety. Last winter, when another community was petitioning the city not to open such a shelter in their area, she actually spoke in support of emergency shelters after realizing that her worst fears were never realized - she had continued to be safe in her neighbourhood, despite the fact that the shelter had opened contrary to her wishes. The lesson: not all homeless people are dangerous. And I think if the public actually took some time to educate themselves about who is homeless - including the families on the street - they might develop more compassion. But we're not there yet.

We saw the blowback in Alberta recently when the Stelmach government staunchly refused to impose rent controls. Let the market decide, was the mantra. The problem with that attitude in these times in this province is that soaring housing costs are no longer only affecting the poor and homeless: they're hitting the middle class as well. And, when that happens, the voices speaking against the market-based economy (which really means "whatever homeowners/landlords can get away with charging") become much louder - especially when other costs are rising as well, like gas prices. Suddenly, more people are "disadvantaged" and the gap between the homeless and the middle class narrows - especially when some realize they may be one paycheck away from actually being homeless too. Stelmach's response was to only allow landlords to raise rents once per year. Not enough Ed. Sorry.

Tory governments are in love with "task forces" here - talk til you drop and wait to find out that they're not going to do much of anything anyway. It's their addiction so they claim they're "listening" to Albertans. They may be listening but they don't exactly hear anything other than the sound of their own voices most of the time. In fact, they can be so out of touch that former premier Ralph Klein even admitted that his government had no plan for how to deal with the latest oil boom. They are always trying to play catch up and it is always years too late.

Alberta's year end surplus was $8.5 billion, "more than double the original estimate." Mind you, they've continually low-balled the surplus estimates so they can come out in front of the cameras like proud peacocks to proclaim "look how wonderful we are!" while using their so-called surprise as a justification to not properly fund services in the meantime. And, every year, it's "let's stash this away for a rainy day". Well, it's been pouring and they haven't even noticed - or they just don't care. Just how much have Albertans benefited from these windfalls? Ask around. Not much.

And so they'll continue to place small bandages on major issues like homelessness hoping nobody will notice that they have no willingness to seriously tackle the problems. Ostriches with tiny first-aid kits. That's what they are.

The only booming that's not happening here is the voice of Albertans coming through loud and clear in parliament on behalf of people who are suffering as the tory MLAs prefer to cover their ears and sing "la la la...I can't hear you" just like the spoiled children they are.

So no, you won't see homelessness wiped out in this province any time soon. However, if more people knew about how much it really costs to keep so many people homeless, maybe they'd actually give a damn. For that to happen, they'd actually have to start really caring about how this government spends its money instead of continuing to act like doormats. And, if they did that, fewer of those Tory MLAs would be headed back to Edmonton after the next election.


Related:
Shelter: Homelessness in a Growth Economy report (.pdf file) from the Sheldon Chumir Foundation

CBC Calgary Forum: Blueprint Alberta: Rent

Average cost of a one-bedroom apartment:
In 2003: $661
In October, 2006: $780

Rental vacancy rate in Calgary:
In 2003: 4.4 per cent
In October 2006: 0.5 per cent

NPR's special about Housing First.

h/t to The Progressive Economic Forum for highlighting The Star's article.