Letters_11-35

Back to Home Letters - September 1, 2011 Letters: Sept 1

Reid’s use of tax dollars, Steev Morgan

Reid’s use of tax dollars, Wolfe Ehrlichman

Re: Jack Layton, Carmel Gowan

Re: I Didn't know Jack, Norm Landry

A life or death matter – someone finally understands, Leo Ladouceur

Reid’s use of tax dollars

MP Scott Reid wants you to pay for his flyers with your after-tax dollars

MP Scott Reid (Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington) recently sent around a flyer touting the party line that “Political parties currently take $27 million from you” and “it’s unfair that you are forced to pay for political parties you don’t support”. He says, “This is not democratic and this will end.”

As taxpayers we don’t get much say over where our tax dollars go. Take for example the over one billion dollars spent on the G8 and G20 one week last summer. $50 million of that was doled out by Tony Clement in his riding on gazebos and such (1), skirting parliamentary approval (2). The Interim Auditor General said “…going to Parliament requesting money for one purpose and using it for something else is a serious matter…” That is not democratic.

Citizens do have one chance to allocate tax money to something that we support: that is when we vote. When you participate in an election $2.04 of your taxes goes to the party you voted for (3). That doesn’t sound like a lot but it adds up and allows smaller parties whose support base is spread around the country to have a voice in the national debate. If your candidate doesn’t win, at least your vote is not entirely wasted. Many countries such a Germany and Sweden have a similar system (4) to maintain healthy diversity in their politics. Now THAT is democratic.

Stephen Harper has expressed his desire to destroy the Liberal Party. His adviser, Keith Beardsley, has said that the prime minister "hates the Liberal Party" and that his goal is to "break the brand" (5). Towards this end Harper is going to eliminate the per-vote subsidy. He is going to keep your $2.04 to use at his discretion. I am not a Liberal supporter but I believe parliament should be about debate and compromise, not eliminating the opposition. It’s just not democratic.

It appears Mr. Reid’s message is coming straight out of the Prime Minister’s office, but why would he pass this misleading distortion of the facts on to us using his allocation of taxpayers’ money? Is that democratic?

The Tories, with their policies that favour the rich and big business, have no problem getting donations. In fact, Elections Canada alleges that in the 2006 election the Tories broke the rules in order to exceed the allowable limits on election advertising (6). The fact that the Harper government is now going to steal the other parties’ lunch money is no surprise considering Harper’s approach to dominating parliament. It is not democratic, but how will it end?

Steev Morgan

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2010/06/the-g8-g20-and-a-gazebo-worth-gazillions.htmlhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/09/auditor-general-report.htmlhttp://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/07/why-the-pervote-payday-is-worth-savinghttp://informedopinions.org/?q=node/36 http://www.straight.com/article-390540/vancouver/conservatives-under-stephen-harper-and-ndp-leader-jack-layton-aimed-destroy-liberal-partyhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-top-aide-being-linked-to-in-and-out-scandal/article1934618/Reid’s use of tax dollars

In his last monthly mailing, local Member of Parliament Scott Reid states: “It's unfair that you are forced to pay for political parties that you don't support”. Mr. Reid does not really believe this or he would not be using my tax dollars to pay for partisan attack ads, which are what his mail-outs really are.

More importantly, it's also unfair to use my tax dollars to support the Conservatives’ “Tough on Crime Agenda” when this policy's only objective is to promote the Conservative Party. It is a policy that actually increases crime and makes us less safe. Mr. Reid maintains we will be safer because all the criminals will be in jail but this is not an effective strategy because most inmates are jailed for minor crimes and will be out relatively quickly, perhaps more hardened because of their longer sentences. It has been proven, particularly in the U.S.A., that putting more people in jail does not make us any safer. Newt Gingrich, a prominent Republican in the U.S.A., wants to rely less on jails. He wrote that”...we can keep the public safe while spending fewer tax dollars if we spend them more effectively ”. He also said that Texas had reduced its prison population by community treatment for the mentally ill and low-level drug addicts. Mr. Gingrich also said: “...although New York spent less on its prisons, it delivered better public safety”.

Mr. Reid accuses his critics of sympathizing with criminals and not caring about the victims. It is Mr. Scott who does not care about the victims. If he really cared about them, he would put in place policies that would reduce crime and not punish criminals after crimes are committed. This is similar to using a fly swatter to control flies in your house. It is more effective to put screens on your windows.

Over 90% of the prison population in Canada has less than Grade 10 education. It may be that strategies that keep young people in school rather than in jail might be more effective in reducing the crime rate. Also, 40% of prison inmates have mental health issues. It is possible that addressing those issues rather than putting mentally ill people in jail might be a more effective way of making us safer. Scott Reid will respond by saying that his tough on crime agenda will include programs to rehabilitate inmates. However this does not seem to be a priority for the Conservatives. Also, whatever programs are offered will be too little and too late, since the crimes will have been committed.

The focus of the Conservative agenda is putting people in jail. It is going to cost billions of dollars and, with their parallel commitments to buying expensive fighter planes, lower taxes, eliminating the deficit and a balancing the budget, there will be no money for “frills” such a rehabilitation of “bad guys”, never mind health care or the environment.

It is a lot cheaper and more effective to prevent crime. Prime Minister Harper said that crime victims want “bad guys” in jail. But surely it would be better if the crimes didn't occur in the first place? Screens are a better “Tough on Flies” policy than fly swatters. Education and mental health services are a better and cheaper “Tough on Crime” policy than jails.

Scott Reid would be a better public servant if he followed his own advice: “It's unfair that you are forced to pay for political parties that you don't support”. Especially if they make us less safe.

Wolfe Ehrlichman

Re: Jack Layton

“No one should have everything unless everyone has something.”

Winston Churchill said it. Jack Layton lived it.

Carmel Gowan

Re: "I didn't know Jack" (August 25)

Though on a rather less epic scale, when Jack Layton passed away, a picture came to mind of Moses on Mount Nebo (Deuteronomy 34, 1-4), when God showed him the Promised Land but he was never to enter it. Jack Layton won a historic political victory, only, like Moses, never to enjoy its fruits. Requiescat in pace.

Norm Landry

A life or death matter – someone finally understands:

At the County council meeting of  August 17 (Frontenac News, County Council, Aug 25/11), Councilor John McDougall from South Frontenac is quoted as saying he could not support moving the ambulance base to the north. He said, “The sticking point for me is the perception that Parham base would move to Sharbot Lake. I believe this is a life or death matter for people in the Portland, Hinchinbrooke and Bedford Districts.”

As the Ompah Ambulance Base saga winds its way through the “News” we finally read the key point in the discussion. Councilor McDougall now realizes that having an ambulance base close to his constituents in South Frontenac is a matter of life or death. Why wouldn’t or couldn’t all county councilors understand that the same life or death issue is also critical to the people in the north.

Citizens of North Frontenac are not asking that their neighbors in Central or South Frontenac to be placed in jeopardy or into life or death situations. For the sake of fairness, they are only asking for an ambulance service that will remedy that same life or death situation that already exists in the north today.

Leo Ladouceur