[SimonP]

Come now, that is simplistic. The Harris government made deep cuts to balance the budget over time. The sale of the 407 was only part of the strategy and would in no way have made up a $10 billion deficit. The Harris government made real cuts and not just 'lip-service' ones and reformed spending in almost every portfolio.

What made up the $10 billion deficit was revenue leaping from $48 billion to $62 billion. Similar increases were seen by governments across North America due to the economy, so Harris doesn't get much credit for the increase.

It's also something of a myth that Harris made deep cuts to overall spending. Harris' cuts were mostly ideological, to things like welfare, transit, and government regulation. These are small parts of the provincial budget and were done mostly for social engineering reasons rather than fiscal ones. Provincial spending continued to rise under the Tories, and was about $5 billion higher by 2001 then what they took over, but with a $14 billion rise in revenue handed to them (even after the tax cuts) they didn't have to make many difficult decisions.

 

[archanfel]

What made up the $10 billion deficit was revenue leaping from $48 billion to $62 billion. Similar increases were seen by governments across North America due to the economy, so Harris doesn't get much credit for the increase.

It's also something of a myth that Harris made deep cuts to overall spending. Harris' cuts were mostly ideological, to things like welfare, transit, and government regulation. These are small parts of the provincial budget and were done mostly for social engineering reasons rather than fiscal ones. Provincial spending continued to rise under the Tories, and was about $5 billion higher by 2001 then what they took over, but with a $14 billion rise in revenue handed to them (even after the tax cuts) they didn't have to make many difficult decisions.

The question is what they did spend their money on. They cut welfare, transit, where did the money go?

The 1994-1995 Revenue was $46 billion, Expense was $56 billion. By 2002, Revenue was $66 billion, Expense was $65 billion. Operating expenditure went from $52.5 billion to $63.5 billion. Out of which, healthcare went up by $8.5 billion. Education went up by $3.5 billion. Social services only went down by $1.5 billion. Just from those number, you would think Harris was a left-wing Pinko.

I do agree with you though. Mike Harris was way too soft. Welfare should be cut more severely, public health care should be reformed.

 

[archanfel]

In the 1970's, 19% of Torontonians lived below the proverty line. Today, 53% do. Why? Because the middle was slowly rob by conservative government policies, of cutting taxes for those with money, while cutting services for those without. It's that simple. This was Harris's tactic, I beleive it will be Ford's as well. We'll just have to wait and see. I think the honeymoon will end the day after the next budget is released.

Low income neighbourhood does not equal to poverty line. Plus, the 20% threshold is arbitrary at best (I don't think people making 20% less than me is noticeably poorer, nor are the people making 20% more noticeably wealthier. I did say +100% to -50% are much more meaningful), cherry picking at worst. The dear professor also didn't make the case that there's anything wrong with the changes. By his standard, North Korea would be the best place to live since people starve equally. Economics changed. Over the past 40 years, North American economy went from manufacture based to professional and service based. Professionals makes more money than manufacture workers whereas service jobs generally pay less. There's nothing wrong with that. I love how he tried to correlate with skin color rather than education, language, training, skills, etc... If you really have to blame it on something, then blame it on the minimum wage. Minimum wage drives up unemployment in low skilled workers.

 

[MisterF]

I never claimed the tories eliminated the debt.

He eliminated an uprecedented debt left by the NDP

You were saying?

 

[nfitz]

Welfare should be cut more severel.

Good grief ... why don't you just take them all out and shoot them!

How can anyone make such bizarre suggestions. Do you want higher crime rates? More deaths and murders?

 

[allabootmatt]

Spacing is reporting that the schedule for pre-budget consultations has been released, with one public meeting in each community council area. Wanna know where the T&EYCC meeting is? East York Civic Centre. Yes, seriously.

These guys seem to want to govern not only without the input of downtown, but as though it doesn't even exist. Odd choice to make regarding the most economically successful and important part of the city (and country).

 

[PinkLucy]

When people say that welfare should be cut, I always hope they don't find themselves in a desperate situation where they have to turn to others for help. I've worked with welfare recipients for years. Yes, there are some who abuse the system. There are people who abuse every system. However, those folks are in the minority but they do give a bad rap to the majority who are just trying to feed their family. Welfare recipients are people who have just had lousy luck or found themselves in temporary difficulties; sometimes they are students trying to get through school. Sometimes they are young adults who have been thrown out of the family home. There are lots of reasons people find themselves on welfare, and what they receive is not enough to make ends meet. It's always easy to target welfare recipients as a bunch of lazy bums who just want government handouts, but this is not at all the case for the vast majority.

 

[CN Tower]

Good grief ... why don't you just take them all out and shoot them!

How can anyone make such bizarre suggestions. Do you want higher crime rates? More deaths and murders?

I too believed that the welfare system should be reformed. The current system encourages complacency. I do not agree with your statement that cuts to welfare necessarily = higher crime>death>murders. That my friend is called a socialist scare tactic.

The biggest proponent of welfare cuts I know is a Jamaican immigrant who overcame the cycle of poverty in his welfare dominated neighborhood. He believes that the system rewards ose unwilling to improve their situation. He opened my eyes quite a bit. I was more sympathetic to welfare recipients prior to meeting him.

 

[Eug]

Good grief ... why don't you just take them all out and shoot them!

Huh?

That's the weirdest leap I've seen in a while.

I too believed that the welfare system should be reformed. The current system encourages complacency. I do not agree with your statement that cuts to welfare necessarily = higher crime>death>murders. That my friend is called a socialist scare tactic.

The biggest proponent of welfare cuts I know is a Jamaican immigrant who overcame the cycle of poverty in his welfare dominated neighborhood. He believes that the system rewards ose unwilling to improve their situation. He opened my eyes quite a bit. I was more sympathetic to welfare recipients prior to meeting him.

I became less sympathetic to low income housing after I actually lived in low income housing.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

CBC Radio

The report found that the proportion of neighbourhoods — what Statistics Canada refers to as census tracts — considered to be middle income was 29 per cent in 2005, down from 66 per cent in 1970.

The proportion of low income neighbourhoods, meanwhile, rose from 19 per cent in 1970 to 53 per cent in 2005. Low income neighbourhoods are defined as those with average individual incomes at 20 per cent of the city average or lower.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/12/15/three-cities-report542.html#ixzz18TlziQ3N

I might have misunderstood a report I heard on the radio last week. But the divide between the rich and poor at the expense of the middle, has increased considerable.

Uh, hardly anyone lived in the 905 back then, so comparing the 416 of 1970 (almost the entire GTA) with the 416 of today (less than half the GTA) is kind of pointless. Do you really expect a city that's adding millions of people to maintain the same socio-economic residential patterns over time or in every new neighbourhood that's built, like copy and paste on a metro scale? Impossible.

We're very lucky to have poor people a) not all crammed in the inner city, b) not all cast off into the fringes, and c) not all lumped together one sketchy sector of town. Really, very lucky.

Also, census tracts aren't necessarily a good way to refer to numbers of people since they all vary in size. The largest tracts are generally better off, too, since they tend to house people who recently bought new homes.

Anyway, family/household income figures are a minefield of problems. How can you meaningfully compare a traditional family of four with a widow living in a bungalow worth $800,000, or university student renting an apartment downtown, or a house full of adult relatives living together (each a 'family'), or even someone making money off the grid? Just because some researchers are searching for points to make doesn't mean their 'expert findings' reflect the reality of "poor" or "poverty" in any way that actually helps governments tackle the issues. The Three Cities stuff is fearmongering as per Hulchanski's agenda, using a map designed to appeal to people who will accept what it is saying without thinking about it.

If 100,000 middle class people move from Toronto to Pickering, yeah, that could theoretically have a negative impact on some 416 statistics, but how is that so bad for the whole city if you're looking at it from a GTA scale? It's almost as if you think Conservative governments disappeared these 100,000 people, which is a worse fate than moving to Pickering...probably

 

[adma]

^Well said, as always.

Decades from now, when we look back at this time, and specifically the last 2 months, it may be come to be seen as the critical moment that Toronto willfully, and perhaps irrevocably, lost its bearings and began to slowly self-destruct. From "stop the gravy train," to "transit city is dead" to "left wing kooks" to Ford's spineless minions on council stoking his ego by voting en masse to support his short-sighted measures that may cripple us down the road, this may be the time we threw it all away--and by "all" I mean the unique qualities that made this city a beacon of tolerance, sophistication and forward thinking in North America.

I hate to think this because it makes me depressed and sad, but I fear that we may now be infected with the same mean-spirited, selfish, "ignorance is strength" mind set that has plagued America for the past 30 years and is threatening to do the same up here. *shudder*

Though...I don't know. Given what Toronto is, "tailspin into complacency" seems an inadequate prognosis. Somehow, I can see a more Belfast-esque "tailspin into civic anarchy and violence" on the horizon if Ford-ism proceeds a little too unchecked. Like, let self-destruction *really* mean self-destruction...

 

[lafard]

The "tailspin into complacency" had been ongoing for many years. Miller was the exception to the rule. It's not that places like Vancouver and Calgary are rushing ahead with city building; it's that Toronto used to be like that too and some decades ago, slowed down to a crawl.

The reality is that as the economic power of Canada continues to trickle to the West, Toronto runs a very real risk of being left behind. I feel that that's already happening, which is why the Ford gang is so appealing to so many. They more than represent an appeal over the "gravy train". They are, in a way, a figurehead of Toronto's glory days decades ago. Look back to the known glory of the past rather than the unknown potential of the future.

30 years ago, Toronto COULD be complacent. It was the only real alternative when separatism killed Montreal. Vancouver was a provincial outpost on the far end of a thinly populated country, and Calgary and Edmonton were both no more important than Saskatoon is today. The situation has changed, Canada and the world are both changing, and Rob Ford's 1970s ideas are no longer the best solution. Toronto NEEDS to retain forward momentum or else it will sink into stagnation.

 

[adma]

The situation has changed, Canada and the world are both changing, and Rob Ford's 1970s ideas are no longer the best solution. Toronto NEEDS to retain forward momentum or else it will sink into stagnation.

Except that you're thinking more of 50s/60s ideas relative to Ford. When I think of "70s ideas", I think more of the Crombie/Sewell/Jane-Jacobs lineage that ultimately led to David Miller. And to be honest, I'd rather "stagnate" under that than under Ford-ism...

 

[EnviroTO]

The social system and the tax system for low or no income people needs to be redesigned. If we really wanted to get rid of abuse of the system we need to remove cash and replace everything with an electronic system. Abuse of the system is getting more than you should and without knowing what people are making from other means it is pretty hard to determine what assistance they should be getting. Also, a dumb policy is one where working part-time for a low pay actually reduces or keeps the same the amount money you have after tax each month. The government should take all the money it uses to create coins and paper money, the money is takes to ship that currency all over the place, and instead buy Interac from the banks and make it the Canadian currency.

 

[adma]

And going back to this...

That said, that doesn't mean that same person suddenly wants Harris back, or even Ford for that matter. I just think of Ford as someone approaching one extreme, because people are so sick of the other extreme.

Personally, I like progamatic moderates, and neither Miller and Ford are pragmatic moderates. To put it another way, I blame Cherry's "left wing pinkos" for Ford's election.

To present Miller and Ford as equally balanced "extremes" is like placing colour-field abstraction and a sneering yahoo with a paint-roller as equally-balanced "extremes".