Bonny's profileBeePhotosBlogLists Tools Help

Blog


    February 24

    The Tories start shredding the country... again

    The Tories have started to, in Margaret Atwood's words, shred the country -- again. And what better place to start than killing funding for government subsidized daycare?
     
    Harper thinks he's got a simple, good idea -- $1,200 per year per offspring under the age of 6. Money in one's pocket has got to be a good thing, right? Not necessarily.
     
    $1,200 per year per offspring for families who are well-off enough to have one parent (usually the mother) stay home with the offspring(s) is nice. It may go towards such worthy goods such as organic baby food, extra cushy strollers with big wheels, and designer children's clothes. The odd (very odd) bleeding-heart goody-goody couple may decide to give their live-in nanny from the Philippines a modest raise.
     
    $1,200 per year per offspring for families of typical middle class existence (or below) combined with no or reduced access to government subsidized daycare space is zero help when it costs up to $800 per month to place a child in private daycare (http://www.childcareontario.org/library/ONchildcarestats2005.pdf; http://www.moneysense.ca/spending/credit_debt/article.jsp?content=20040423_142424_4924).
     
    And why $1,200? Where does that number come from? I'd like to know.
     
    So the Tories think they have a mandate (see below) to kill funding for government subsidized daycare. So according to them, they also think they have a mandate to:
     
    * join the stupid War in Iraq (it's never too late!)
    * strip gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry
    * pretty much anything that the Tories said that they'd like to do
     
    And these clowns have only got a minority government by the slimest of margins!
     
    This is only the beginning.
    Provinces get notice about day-care cuts
    Feb. 24, 2006. 03:00 PM
    CANADIAN PRESS

    Harper government puts provinces on notice

    The new Conservative government has formally notified the provinces it will terminate child-care agreements signed by the previous Liberal regime as of next March, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said today.

    Flaherty said the government has a mandate to scrap the $5 billion in child-care deals with the provinces and replace them with a program that gives parents $1,200 for each child under age six along with $250 million in tax credits for employers and non-profit agencies to provide new spaces.

    "The choice will be with the parents," Flaherty said. "We're also going to proceed with the . . . commitment about creating child care spaces (at) community organizations and with employers."

    While the Liberals signed various child-care deals with the provinces, the change will mean the loss of 20,000 new child-care spaces for Ontario alone, said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Marie Bountrogianni.

    Ontario is committed to giving parents "one-stop shopping" at schools for everything from day care and breakfast programs to before and after-school care, but would have to do so at a slower pace without federal funds, Bountrogianni said.

    "It's an excellent model, research-based, and I would hate for Prime Minister Harper to kill it," she said.

    Bountrogianni said the cuts in day-care funding would cost Ontario $1.87 billion over five years, money she hopes could be found elsewhere by the Conservatives in their talks with the provinces on the so-called fiscal imbalance.

    "We're not saying to them, `Change your child care plans,"' she said. "We're just saying, `Provide the necessary resources, so there is room for negotiations."'

    The provincial premiers, who gathered today in Ottawa, were planning to press Harper to live up to the day-care agreements the former federal Liberal government signed with Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba.

    Toronto Mayor David Miller said today that Harper's cut in day-care funding would mean the loss of 6,000 new subsidized spaces ``for the poorest people in the poorest neighbourhoods."

    Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion complained the day-care issue is another example of how communities can't make long-term plans because higher levels of government can't be trusted to honour agreements signed by their predecessors.

    "We're getting the gas tax now from the federal government, under Martin, and Harper had to confirm that he'll continue it," she said.

    "But what happens if he decides to cut it out? How can we do financial planning at the local level when we don't know whether we're going to get it?"

    Appearing at a breakfast meeting today with Bountrogianni and Miller, Flaherty also said the Conservative government would take steps to deal with deteriorating roads and public transit systems in Canada's cities.

    "We need to address the infrastructure issues, including transit, including the highways," he said.

    "Making sure that goods and services can move effectively in the Greater Toronto Area and all of southern Ontario . . . is important for Ontario, it's important for Canada, it's important for our economic life."

    Flaherty, who represents a suburban riding east of Toronto, said dealing with the infrastructure problems "has to be a priority for all of us who live in this area."
    February 22

    Victims

    I am suspicious of people who take on the role of victim too readily. Such individuals (a) refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for whatever misfortunes that have befallen them and (b) use their misfortunes to justify their own bad behaviour and subsequent failure in life.
     
    Think of Steve Moore. The fact that two years later he's still crying like a baby telling his story to anyone who has nothing better to do than listen to him indicates that he is still in full victim mode. His lawyer said Moore still felt the effects of the concussion. Poor Stevie. But consider this: if your focus in life for two years is to tell everyone how you've been screwed and how sorry they should be for you because you're now lame and useless, it is not surprising that you *are* lame and useless.
     
    I am not saying that Moore had not suffered, or that he is not deserving of some compensation for what has been done to him (although certainly not $15 million, not even 10% of that). My point is that: one can never recover until one moves on. The obsession with revenge and garnering public sympathy stands in the way of any chance of turning over a page and starting anew.