Long Sault ON – SD&SG Liberal provincial candidate Mark A MacDonald was entertaining the folks at the Long Sault Family Circle Seniors Club Friday June 24th. He’s been blitzing the riding as he preps for the October election.
He had the following to say about Seniors in general in the riding.
Since my nomination nearly two weeks ago, I’ve had the opportunity to travel to different parts of the Riding and gauge public opinion with respect to what people see as issues that are important to them.
While it’s clear that taxes remain a constant topic of discussion, it’s also clear that the message of “we need to do more for seniors” is at the top of people’s minds.
That’s why today I am announcing that I am dedicating my campaign to the seniors of S. D. & S. G., and I am going to make sure that I keep their issues front and centre, during the campaign.
It’s easy to talk about cutting taxes but that comes with cutting services and I do not want to see our seniors left behind.
Our MPP Jim Brownell, has brought hospital upgrades, a health centre, new social housing, upgrades for long term care and recreational facilities, just to name a few things, to our Riding, all in an effort to improve our quality of life.
For the first time in over 20 years we have new social housing units in Cornwall and Ingleside, with efforts being made to house seniors in supportive housing and handicap accessible units.
We have turned the corner in Ontario and we are on the move but we must continue to work hard.
“We need to do more for seniors”, because with an aging population there are more stresses than ever on families and friends that are caring for someone who is elderly.
Mark A. MacDonald
Liberal Candidate
He took a break from performing to talk about the crisis facing many of our aging population. You can post your concerns for our Seniors below.
In December 2009, the Ontario Liberals endorsed their poverty reduction strategy to reduce poverty by 25% in the next 5 years. This week Poverty Free Ontario latest released a report that read from 2007 to 2009 poverty in Ontario rose 17% and the highest level in our nation. The Maritimes and Quebec have the lowest rates and they have made effective changes in social assistance and seriously adapted a strategy that worked to lower the levels of poverty in their provinces.Time is running out for the Liberals and our poverty rate is still growing at an alarming rate in this province. Stop throwing peanuts at us McGuinty and making promises that their efforts are working. The election is coming in October and I wonder if the Liberals are ready to tell the truth to let us know how they plan on working effectively on reducing or eradicating poverty. If not, I hope that the local SDSG voters don’t support Mark’s party and vote to keep in the liberals in power because Mark is a nice guy and sings to seniors.
For 35 years politicians have been talking about reducing poverty. And for 35 years poverty has increased annually. It must be that feel good about themselves adrenalin rush politicians feel when blowing smoke up your a**. However, the Conservatives and Liberals have never lied to us in the past.
In the aftermath of the Great Recession, in many countries (too Canada), this is leading to a new round of austerity – policies that will almost surely lead to weaker national and global economies and a marked slowdown in the pace of recovery. Those hoping for large deficit reductions will be sorely disappointed, as the economic slowdown will push down tax revenues and increase demands for unemployment insurance and other social benefits.
The attempt to restrain the growth of debt does serve to concentrate the mind – it forces countries to focus on priorities and assess values. The Canada is unlikely in the short term to embrace massive budget cuts, à la the United Kingdom.
Technically, reducing a deficit is a straightforward matter: one must either cut expenditures or raise taxes. It is already clear, however, that the deficit-reduction agenda, at least in the Canada, goes further: it is an attempt to weaken social protections, reduce the progressivity of the tax system, and shrink the role and size of government – all while leaving established interests, like the military-industrial complex, as little affected as possible.
In the Canada (and some other advanced industrial countries), any deficit-reduction agenda has to be set in the context of what happened over the last decade:
• a massive increase in defense expenditures, fueled by two fruitless wars, but going well beyond that;
• growth in inequality, with the top 1% garnering more than 20% of the country’s income, accompanied by a weakening of the middle class – median Canada household income has fallen by more than 5% over the past decade, and was in decline even before the recession;
• underinvestment in the public sector, including in infrastructure.
• growth in corporate welfare, from bank bailouts to ethanol subsidies to a continuation of agricultural subsidies, even when those subsidies have been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.
Creating a fairer and more efficient tax system, by eliminating the special treatment of capital gains and dividends, is also needed. Why should those who work for a living be subject to higher tax rates than those who reap their livelihood from speculation (often at the expense of others)?
Finally, with more than 20% of all income going to the top 1%, a slight increase, say 5%, in taxes actually paid would bring in more than $1 billion over the course of a decade.
A deficit-reduction package crafted along these lines would more than meet even the most ardent deficit hawk’s demands. It would increase efficiency, promote growth, improve the environment, and benefit workers and the middle class.
There’s only one problem: it wouldn’t benefit those at the top, or the corporate and other special interests that have come to dominate Canadian’s policymaking. Its compelling logic is precisely why there is little chance that such a reasonable proposal would ever be adopted.
No government that I can recall, federal or provincial, has done anything but talk about reducing or eliminating poverty. To actually do something about it would go against our beloved free-market capitalist system. We need the threat of poverty and homelessness to keep people working for minimum wage in order to keep the filthy rich filthy rich.