One million Ontarians are on welfare. The recent report called A Roadmap for Change calls for a 22 per cent increase in welfare spending over the next three years costing an estimated 3.2 billion a year. It recommends a housing allowance akin to a voucher, a pharma-care and dental assistance plan for the working poor as well as those on welfare and proposes a rock-bottom poverty line of $22,000 for a single person and 30 per cent more for the disabled.
As fine as this may seem, it doesn't mean a party running for office will get elected if it promises to implement such a plan. Our intrepid friends at the Toronto Star have done their research and concluded many will vote against such proposals, considering them a waste of money. They will, the Star's reporters assert, want their needs taken care of first, like hydro rate deductions, child care subsidies and a reduction in income tax.
If we take the above seriously, it means a program to considerably reduce poverty will not get its advocates elected, and even if they are, the next bunch who attempt to administrate the daily running of capitalism may abolish some of it; Mike Harris's government of the 1990's, which,' 'sliced and diced'' welfare payments, being an example.
So where does that leave us?
It's significant that none of the major parties promise to abolish poverty because they've learned they cannot. All they can do is take steps to reduce it. So why not have done with all parties who stand for capitalist society, which by its very nature creates poverty? Why not have done with capitalism. So why not organize and work for a society where poverty and welfare payments will be a thing of the past?
As fine as this may seem, it doesn't mean a party running for office will get elected if it promises to implement such a plan. Our intrepid friends at the Toronto Star have done their research and concluded many will vote against such proposals, considering them a waste of money. They will, the Star's reporters assert, want their needs taken care of first, like hydro rate deductions, child care subsidies and a reduction in income tax.
If we take the above seriously, it means a program to considerably reduce poverty will not get its advocates elected, and even if they are, the next bunch who attempt to administrate the daily running of capitalism may abolish some of it; Mike Harris's government of the 1990's, which,' 'sliced and diced'' welfare payments, being an example.
So where does that leave us?
It's significant that none of the major parties promise to abolish poverty because they've learned they cannot. All they can do is take steps to reduce it. So why not have done with all parties who stand for capitalist society, which by its very nature creates poverty? Why not have done with capitalism. So why not organize and work for a society where poverty and welfare payments will be a thing of the past?
For socialism,
Steve, Mehmet, John & contributing members of the SPC.
Steve, Mehmet, John & contributing members of the SPC.
No comments:
Post a Comment