 |
 |
Inkshedders: I hope that I'm not proselytizing with my economic pronouncements, but I feel that, given the concern and alarm shown on this list during the neverendum, the deficit hysteria we are facing in this country must be of equal concern. (Both of these issues threaten Canada as we know it). Also, and further challenging prevailing definitions of literacy, this is an exercise in "economic literacy." My partner, who keeps me up to date on this material, has just had her job description changed to work in economic literacy. The feeling in the low-income East Toronto community she works in is that if people are not provided the tools to decipher the rhetoric of monetarism, etc., they will not be able to fight the local cutbacks scrums let alone the larger battles. Of course, economic literacy is no less important for those of us who work in universities, colleges, schools, etc. Again, mea culpa, this is a recycled posting I sent to OISE. -Michael Hoechsmann ________________________________________________________________________ The percentage of the Canadian tax bill paid by corporations in 1961 was 25%. By 1992, this had dropped to 7%. In the mid-70s, just as the post-war economic boom was winding down, the federal govt. came under intense pressure from corporations and wealthy Canadians to decrease taxes. So called "tax expenditures" (better known as loopholes) were introduced and the result was that the federal govt. ran deficit budgets from 1976-85. Even though federal govts. were able to run some balanced budgets in the late 80s, escalating interest rates drove the debt further skyward. A Stats-Can report in 1991 stated that the federal debt was the result of tax loopholes which had been in effect since the mid-70s (50%), escalating interest rates (44%) and program spending (6%) of which social spending was only a small part (2%). The provincial debt results from external factors such as the impact of globalization and NAFTA on the Ontario tax base, but also from the downloading of financial responsibility from the federal govt. to the provincial one. For example, in 1989, the federal govt. introduced the cap on CAP (Canada Assistance Plan) to the three "wealthiest" provinces: Alberta, BC and Ontario. Now, with EPF (Established Program Funding) block transfers reduced, all provinces are taking a big hit. In this period of flux and transition, govts. across Canada are in the position to reshuffle the deck of their respective social contracts. Changes are happening all at once at so many levels that it is easy to point the finger of blame elsewhere while hacking apart the social structure. In New Zealand, the social engineers who tore the social fabric apart used the motto "hit fast, hit hard, hit all sectors simultaneously." The idea was to keep people reeling under the drastic cuts and to pit social groups against one another. It is no secret that some of the gurus of that NONSENSICAL DEVOLUTION have been invited to Canada to advise the Kleins and the Harrises. (It has been a lose-lose scenario for the majority of New Zealanders). We are witnessing the NONSENSICAL DEVOLUTION of the mediating role of govt. (between the interests of private capital and the needs of workers), of the social infrastructure and of the public sphere (in so much as the arts and education are also facing the axe). It's as though Canadian govts. want to take the words of Mr. Fund (the young financial analyst who wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year that Canada is an honorary Third World nation) as self-fulfilling prophecy. In the brave new world of the globalizing economy, it's a race to the bottom. Fasten your seatbelts! P.S. The TORONTO STAR reported today that Harris does admit that the economy will take a downturn because of the cuts, but he argues that this is a result of ten years of "overspending." Unfortunately, with all of the jobshedding that is going on, the taxbase will continue to shrink and the deficit is unlikely to diminish, despite the drop in our standard of living. As Bart Simpson would say: "Ay, caramba!"