Flemming Holm's Blog

Letter to the Editor, Chronicle Herald

Dan Leger’s article in the February 9 issue is in my opinion an accurate and most succinct analysis of the causes of the present financial crisis. Were it not for human greed – the greed of a group of people, mostly millionaires, we would not have a depression today.

When a CEO makes twenty to a hundred times more than his humblest employee, that is exploitation. It is immoral and reprehensible and should be prohibited by law. Anyone guilty of such an offence, whether or not he has been granted a “bail-out”, whether or not he receives the benefit in stock options or as a bonus, should be jailed, like Conrad Black and other robbers. Individual incomes should be capped, especially in times when so many millions are in real need.

Bev Mullins (February 10) thinks the MLAs are paying themselves too much. Surely an MLA or MP has one of the most responsible jobs in our society, and should be paid accordingly. Most of them have to spend much time away from home and family, and some have to maintain two residences. They all have to have rhinoceros hides, for no matter what they do they will be criticized – and if they do nothing they will be castigated for that.

The Chronicle Herald

The cartoon on your editorial page, June 26 was right on. It showed the oilsands producers polishing their carbon imprint through a PR campaign. Would it not be more beneficial to reduce the carbon imprint?

On the same page was an editorial about Nova Scotia’s “gambling czars” polishing their image with an advertising campaign. It would be better if they were to spend their profits providing help for the Province’s problem gamblers. They would also improve their image if they were to further reduce the number of Video Lottery Terminals. What is the chief purpose of the Lottery Corporation – to serve the people, or to make profits?

I have heard that at one time a woman came upon Abraham Lincoln shining his shoes. “Why, Mr. President,” she exclaimed, “Do you shine your own shoes?” “Why yes,” said the President, “Whose shoes do you shine?”

(Published in the Chronicle Herald)

Letter to Michael Baker, Minister of Finance, Province of Nova Scotia.

Dear Sir:

I understand from an item in the Chronicle Herald that you are planning to review the Province’s tax system, and the article contains comments by some representatives of large business organizations.

I hope you will also consult with bodies such as Kairos and The Centre for Policy Alternatives. You will need the points of view of the common people and of those organizations that are most concerned with equality and social justice. Government is more than a business venture, and one of its duties is to protect the vulnerable from the powerful.

According to news reports, the poverty gap is growing, within our country and among the nations. This growth is a scandal in a country as rich as ours. One excellent way to begin closing the gap would be by raising the basic income tax exemption – perhaps by doubling it. I have a pension income sufficient for my needs – some $44,000 annually, with no financial responsibilities for anyone other than myself - so my needs are nicely covered. But I don’t know how those making half that amount are able to exist – on tea and toast, I suppose.

Recently there have been letters in the newspaper criticizing the high salaries paid to members of the Legislature and particularly to members of Cabinet. I happen to believe that our elected governors should be among our best paid citizens; clearly you have important responsibilities, and we have chosen you to exercise those responsibilities. I do deplore the granting of huge bonuses to unelected persons who are already receiving salaries in the hundreds of thousands and even in the millions.

Many of us complain that our taxes are too high. But we seldom provide realistic suggestions for cutting government expenses. We need to consider the benefits we receive for those taxes. Which potholes do we not want to see filled? I am happy with our present total level of taxation, but want to see the burden on the poor lifted, and a more equitable distribution of expenditures. More nursing home beds, more doctors and nurses, better care for people with special needs, universal pharmacare for preschool children – implement these measures, and I wont oppose a modest increase in taxation.

See Ralph Surrette and Jeffrey Sachs for good ideas!

Sent to Michael Baker, Minister of Finance, Province of Nova Scotia

Dear Sir:

I have noted in today’s paper that you are launching an on-line survey in preparation for your annual budget.

I implore you to do what you can to make ours a more compassionate society. It has been said, and I heartily agree, that the success of any society can be measured by the way in which it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Every year or two a survey is taken in each of the nations of the world to rate the satisfaction of its population with their own country. Canada and the Scandinavian countries have consistently scored in the top ten percent. These countries have for decades been blessed with universal medicare, minimum wage laws, workmen’s compensation, pensions of various kinds and other services that to a great extent owe their existence to human compassion and provide protection and a measure of equality for their citizens.

On the other hand, there is much inequality still. I think it was J.K Galbraith who spoke of a “horse and sparrow” economy, built on the theory that if you provide the horse with oats at the front end, what comes out at the rear will keep the sparrows happy. Another useful phrase is “a trickle-down economy”; unfortunately not much trickles down unless by government regulation. This situation presents a serious challenge.

I realize that it is difficult for Canada to compete with the United States when that country has lower minimum wages, more people per mile of road, and the climate tends to be milder. (Perhaps NAFTA was not such a good idea for the low income people of Canada.) The US also tends to throw its weight around and there is much economic imperialism. So the gap between rich and poor widens – and George Bush seems to have other priorities. It widens here as well as in the US. And among the nations, as well as within.

I should like to see the poverty gap narrowed. I should like to see Pharmacare extended to everyone, beginning with all preschool children. I should like to see Medicare strengthened and hospital wait times reduced. I should like to see more and better facilities for the homeless; many of them are unable to function normally in society, but others can do so if they have the support they need. I don’t know what fees you have in mind. But generally, fees should not be such as to prevent the poor from sharing fully in our common life, or obtaining justice in the courts and elsewhere.

Assistance for families who are caring for aged and infirm relatives will take pressure off nursing homes. This will in turn release hospital beds and reduce wait times. Nova Scotia has a large ageing population, so such assistance is particularly important here.

I would be happy to pay more in taxes if I could be sure that the disadvantaged would benefit. At least, I would not complain. Many of us who make more than twice the minimum wage can afford an increase. And we need politicians – nay, statesmen – who will challenge the population to build a more compassionate society. “Ask not what your country can do for you . . . . .”

The Hon. Judy Streatch, M.L.A.
Government of Nova Scotia

Dear Judy:

It was very kind of you to meet with our group at Grace McClung’s on May 25. I hope you got – and continue to get – some satisfaction on the subjects raised. I take for granted that for the most part our political representatives want to do the right and helpful things, but if they are to achieve their goals they need to know they have public support. I also believe that the wealthy and powerful can make their wishes known – but someone needs to make a special effort to speak for the common people. And you certainly gave us something to think about.

One problem you expressed had to do with letting the low income people know about the programs that were available to them. (Some people who are on low incomes tend not to do much reading. They may not have the necessary time nor education.) Some days after our meeting I was watching, on CPAC, a conference on medicare. I heard Tom Kent urge that the federal government should provide complete free pharmacare to all pre-school age children as a right, no matter what their family income. Then, he said, we could later raise the age limit to include all school children. Recognize the care of the children as a national responsibility, he said. It occurred to me that if all small children were entitled to the same benefits the word might get around better, a means test (always demeaning) would not be necessary, and the tendency to feel stigmatized because of poverty would be diminished. One might object that this would cause the tax burden to rise and that the wealthy could easily pay and would not need this benefit. Well then, we could retrieve the cost by increasing taxes on high incomes. We supply water, air, hospital beds, physician services and the protection of the law more or less equally and freely to all, as their rights as human beings and Canadian citizens, so why not prescribed medicines and other such benefits as well? This might solve your problem (and produce others.) Start provincially, and then, perhaps, involve the feds - as happened in the case of medicare.

As for the matter Grace outlined in her letter to you, that some employers seem to avoid paying benefits by hiring part-time workers, perhaps all employers could be required to pay benefits on all regular jobs, or on all jobs of over (say) 10 hours per week or paying over $80 per week. But if the barrier were set too low it would encourage the underground economy; I might try to avoid paying benefits to the boy who cuts my lawn once a week. The sooner the minimum wage is raised, the better.

Surely the two greatest and most shameful failings of the human race are war and poverty. It is a scandal that in this democratic and enlightened country some people have a hundred times the income of others; that speaks of discrimination and exploitation.

Anyone who accepts an income of a million a year while others are in want should be entitled to a stay in the hoosegow; or at least be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Everyone who can work should have a right to a decent-paying job, and anyone who cannot work should have a guaranteed income, large enough to live on. The climate of opinion needs to change before this can take effect, but there are many people who share this view.

(No, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of a communist party. But “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need” sounds good to me and should be approved by government and every CEO. It should be accepted as an ideal in an enlightened and mature democracy, whether or not it is enshrined in law. We in North America have for many years tended to be overprotective of our capitalist system because those who have the most influence over public opinion have wanted to be free to increase their wealth and power. Thus in the thirties and forties the CCF was vilified by big business as being communist.)

Foodbanks are not the answer to the problem of the poverty gap; they are evidence of the failure of society and of the greed of a few. The problem is systemic and cannot be fixed with bandaids. Atlantica is not the answer: as long as there is no common minimum wage among the participating states and provinces, we shall be forced to pay lower wages. The same is true of free trade.

A couple of generations ago Al Capp (creator of L’l Abner) had a character by the name of General Bullmoose who went around declaiming “What is good for General Bullmoose is good for the country”. I believe someone (Guess who?) had said that what was good for General Motors was good for the country. A trickle down economy doesn’t work to the benefit of the average joe or jill; too little trickles down – it trickles up instead – or pours up. The poverty gap is still growing, provincially, nationally, internationally.

One of the most important functions of government is to protect the vulnerable/poor against the rich. But it is difficult to compete with the United States as long as the Republicans are in power and are reducing the taxes on the wealthy. (By the way, I read some weeks ago that the Democrats would give away the farm to the poor, and the Republicans would give it away to the rich.)

While I have your attention I want to say that I have just gone through a pile of newspaper clippings that I had squirreled away, and want to comment briefly on a few of them.

Some headlines give me joy and hope:

“Welfare recipients get chance to attend university with no penalty”

“Raising minimum wage to $10 in 3-5 years proposed”

“Paying less than a living wage is exploitation”

“NSP salaries: private profit at odds with the public good”

Others raise disturbing possibilities:

“Private health care on the way?”

“A prelude to private health care?”

Private health care would mean higher costs. Of course. It is a matter of simple common sense. Produce and buy in bulk; one size fits all – up to a point. Cut out the billionaire who is trying to make his second or third billion; we don’t need to add to his profits. In the US the total spent on health care per capita is far above Canada’s total, and over 30% of the population there (the poorer third) has no coverage. We have room to expand and improve, while still staying under American total figures, and still maintaining approximate equality of service to everyone.

There was a little rich girl whose teacher required her to write an essay on a poor family. “She started, “This family was very poor. The father was poor, the mother was poor, the children were poor, the governess was poor, the chauffeur was poor . . . “

It is not that the wealthy are bad or uncaring, but when one has spent his life in luxury, measuring success in terms of stocks and bonds and comparing oneself with other wealthy folk, it is hard to think in more realistic terms. The whole climate of thought is affected. In the Middle Ages there was an expression used in theological circles: Invincible Ignorance”. It is still alive today. We can never avoid it entirely.

Someone has said that the success of a civilization is measured by the way the most vulnerable are treated. In Luke 4:16ff. we are told that when Jesus was starting his ministry he went to the synagogue in his home town and read the lessons at the service. According to custom, the passage from the Torah was mandatory. But he was free to choose the reading from the Prophets, and picked two passages from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

Three years later, according to the Gospels, Jesus was executed because he had championed the poor and criticized the domination (pyramid) system: he had criticized the greedy elite, and had interfered with the profits of wealthy business people who were exploiting the poor and who for business reasons had crowded the Gentiles out of “the Court of the Gentiles” – the only spot in Jerusalem set aside for foreigners to worship.

Some years ago, in Medellin, Columbia, a convocation of Roman Catholic bishops said in a statement that God had “a preferential option for the poor”. The term “Liberation Theology” is one that has great relevance for many people today. Its meaning is rooted in the escape from Egypt under Moses and in the realities of life for many millions of people in our world – including thousands of Canadians.

I spent eighteen years of my working life promoting “equality of opportunity” (Human Rights) a cause that was dear to the heart of Jesus.

Now you know where I stand.