Friday, January 26, 2007

The Democratic Dictatorship of the People

The National Council of Free Handouts is demanding the government establish a four year plan to make poverty a priority, as if we weren't impoverished enough already by lobby groups and bureaucrats who grow fat from the proceeds of the hard work of others.

Canadians want the government to put a higher priority on fighting poverty, according to a new report by the National Council of Welfare.

The NCW’s study, released Thursday, drew on the input of 5,000 individuals and more than 400 organizations who responded to an online questionnaire on poverty and income security. The results will be delivered to the federal government.

[..] The top actions that respondents thought could make a difference included a guaranteed livable income, affordable housing, childcare and education and training.

The NCW, an lobby group independent advisory body, says that the country’s “tattered patchwork of programs is not working,” and it proposes four areas of focus to solve poverty: creating a national anti-poverty strategy; developing a coordinated plan of action; ensuring accountability; establishing official poverty indicators.

It calls its four-part plan, a made-in-Canada strategy that offers a practical foundation upon which the government can build.
The actual result of such a scheme is that less and less of the funds collected in the war against poverty go to those most in need and instead are redirected to those who least deserve it - i.e. the administrators of plans reminiscent of those implemented by the most staunch Soviets.

A partial list of some of the respondents joining the line with their hand out:
Of the great number of grassroots, service, labour, corporate and other organizations that have contributed to making the questionnaire a success, many have agreed to be named, including:

AIDS Committee of Guelph and Wellington County, Ontario / Association de défense de droits en culture et éducation des arts, Québec / B.C. Men's Resource Centre, British Columbia / BC Coalition for Health Promotion, British Columbia / Canadian Association of Social Workers, national / Centre d'action populaire de solidarité du Québec Inc, Quebec / Centre for Northern Families, Northwest Territories / First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, British Columbia / Jewish Family Service Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia / Jewish Family Services, Montréal, Quebec / Kids First Association, Nova Scotia / LiteracyWorks, Manitoba / Mt Waddington Harm Reduction Program, British Columbia / Northeast Avalon Community Action Network, Newfoundland and Labrador / Nova House, Manitoba / Pacific Health & Development Sciences Inc., British Columbia / PARO Centre for Women's Enterprise, Thunder Bay, Ontario / People Advocating for Change through Empowerment, Ontario / People in Transition (Alliston) Inc., "My Sister's Place", Ontario / Service Budgétaire Populaire des Sources, Québec / South Okanagan Women in Need Society, British Columbia / Southern & Central Alberta Food Bank Federation, Alberta / Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec, Québec / Temiskaming Native Women’s Support Group, Ontario / The AIDS Network, Ontario / Westlock Human Rights Education and Awareness Foundation, Alberta / Winnipeg Inner City Missions, Manitoba / Women’s Network PEI, Prince Edward Island / Yellowknife Women’s Society, Northwest Territories / Yukon Women’s Directorate, Yukon

1 Comment:

Jack Saturday said...

Hi Lisa--

I agree with your concern that lobby groups and organizations work hard to have cushy career incomes managing the poor. For that of course they need a significant and ongoing supply of poor people.

But hey: there is one policy idea in your list that is the exception: Guaranteed Livable Income. Establishing a GLI would immediately eliminate huge hierarchies of “charity” organizations, lobby groups, and government bureaucracies. The money would go directly to those who need it, and would immediately end both poverty and wage-slavery.

The concept of GLI is burgeoning in discussion around the planet. Supported by many economists as perfectly viable. Its major roadblock is the “Protestant work ethic” as preached and violently beaten into people for 300 years, which insisted that selling yourself to a Master was the morally right thing to do. They said it was wrong to “live off the backs of workers,” despite the obvious, that any capitalist (think of Sam Walton) doesn’t just “live” off the backs of employees, but heaps up wealth-as-money more extravagantly than anyone in history.

Now production is increasingly technological, 5% of the population is all that's needed to produce everything we consume, and maintain the equipment.

It is morally right to “live of the backs” of machines. They don’t mind in the least. Check out this, and come on over to my place.

Jack Saturday