Today Monday Tuesday
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 10:00 PM CDT on May 19, 2013
Chance of a Thunderstorm
90°/70°
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 10:00 PM CDT on May 20, 2013
Thunderstorm
88°/68°
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 10:00 PM CDT on May 21, 2013
Thunderstorm
88°/66°

4 Comments

news

Let Them Eat Kraft Dinner

20090316shopping3.jpg
Anyone who’s read a newspaper or magazine in the last few months can verify: recession chic is the new black. The only thing more irritating than regularly seeing a decline in the figures on your RRSP statement, though, is the spate of sanctimonious and insulting articles on frugal living being churned out in economy-sized quantities in almost every Canadian publication. Every journalist around seems eager to strike the pose of the poverty-stricken: Eye’s Kate Carraway bravely survived on $60 for a whole week. Macleans’ Chris Johns and his girlfriend cut their food budget from $300 a week (!) to a meagre $50 (with recipes courtesy of “some of the country’s best chefs” that spawned a collection of $5 recipes designed to feed families of four, flying directly in the face of Agriculture and Agrifood Canada’s “nutritious food basket” which costs at least $137 a week for a family of four).
Yep, the economy sucks, and yep, many regular people in Canada and all over the world need to find ways to get by on much less. But that group certainly doesn’t include employed journalists with ample disposable income. Ontario has seen a sharp increase in both unemployment numbers and welfare applications since the last few months of 2008. Most people in our province who are truly in need don’t have the luxury of connected social circles from whence to sponge freebies until their exile to No Frills is finally up—a single mother with one child living on welfare in Ontario receives about $14,451 annually, which is almost $10,000 below the Low Income Cut-Off line (LICO) for Toronto. A single person fares the worst of all, with benefits of only $571 a month—much less than $10,000 a year. While a magazine or newspaper article written from a detached and superior position is annoying, policies made from said position are deplorable, not to mention dangerous to those upon whom the policies are imposed. Policies affecting actual poor people in Ontario are in dire need of reform.


20090316shopping2.jpg
Then-Premier Mike Harris’s 21.6% welfare cuts in 1995 are still affecting people in Ontario today—rates have never been significantly re-worked to reflect today’s cost of living; in fact, the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) estimates that current rates would need to be raised 40% just to return them to what they were pre-1995. Welfare rates have never provided a comfortable lifestyle (and to be fair, they have never been intended to), but a 21.6% cut from an already crappy rate left recipients (especially those with families, as the majority of claimants have) reeling. After all, these were budgets that already had almost nothing to trim already, trimmed a quarter more.
The big question post-cuts was what quality of life a person collecting welfare could expect to have. One policy-maker’s reply came in the form of the infamous “shopping list” created by then-social services minister David Tsubouchi. Tsubouchi calculated that a single adult could live on a food budget of $90.81 a month and created a highly flawed shopping list to prove it. This list allowed for things like pasta (but not sauce) and recommended “haggling” for lower prices on items like dented cans of tuna. (This diet also turned out to deliver less nutritional value than the diet fed in Ontario’s prisons.)
20090316shopping1.jpg
Despite the widely known fact that healthy diets lead to fewer long- and short-term health problems, income supplements of as much as $250 per family member per month for food are currently only available to recipients of welfare or disability benefits who can have a doctor, nurse, or midwife sign off on verification of some existing health concern that requires a special diet. Starting in 2005, OCAP began holding “Hunger Clinics” where sympathetic health practitioners help welfare and disability recipients sign up. This controversial strategy has been highly criticized by many over the years, most recently in the Toronto Sun, where articles allege to “blow the whistle” on “abuse” of the program, including the requisite right-wing eye-witness accounts of hard-working taxpayers attesting to that ubiquitous fabulously wealthy, SUV-driving welfare mom.
Where Hunger Clinics and Special Diet Supplements do fall short, of course, is that they do not amount to actual policy change. Making use of funds that are supposed to be available only to some who can prove themselves in need doesn’t truly address that benefits don’t provide any welfare or disability recipient with enough money to live on somewhat healthfully, and they don’t hold the government accountable for providing this basic right upfront to all recipients across the board. Until real policy change occurs, people who receive the Special Diet Supplement will always be at risk of being “exposed” for “exploiting” what many critics would call a loophole in the system—which means that these benefits will be in perpetual danger of revocation, either for individuals, families, or system-wide.
One policy maker with an interest in system reform is Toronto Medical Officer of Health David McKeown, who is currently pushing for a $100 a month “Healthy Food Supplement” to be made available to all adults receiving welfare or disability. In October 2008, McKeown stated that “these inequalities [higher rates of illness and disease and shorter life expectancy] are unacceptable in a society that values equal access to good health.” He was commenting at the time on his Unequal City Report, which tracked income and health inequalities in Toronto. The report confirmed once again the link between income and health in Toronto, stating among many other conclusions that “…if everyone was as healthy as those with the highest incomes and the best health,” that there would be 18% fewer premature deaths and approximately 20% fewer low-birthweight babies. The Ontario government, however, has yet to agree to McKeown’s proposed rate hike and that each month the rates remain unchanged puts more and more individuals and families at risk of the health problems associated with maluntrition. It appears that Toronto is still far from achieving Public Health’s vision of a “healthy city where all people enjoy the highest level of health and well being.”
Photos by Michael Chrisman from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.

Comments

  • http://undefined montauk

    “…articles allege to “blow the whistle” on “abuse” of the program, including the requisite right-wing eye-witness accounts of hard-working taxpayers attesting to that ubiquitous fabulously wealthy, SUV-driving welfare mom.”
    Bleh. I don’t know what was more embarrassing to me as a child – hearing that “welfare moms” were spoiled rotten, or knowing that my own “welfare mom” wasn’t. She’d frantically plan out all our finances week by week just so we could afford milk, she taught by day and tutored by night, and the highlight of her year was when the Catholic church in Mississauga gave her wrapped Christmas gifts from their charity drive, which she’d sequester away for birthday presents over the years. She’d have to choose whether her family would get proper nutrition one week or school supplies the next. I was oblivious to all this, and just wondered why I only got a square of graham cracker when the other kids had Dunkaroos and Fruit by the Foot and Gushers.
    Concluding that one understands a lifestyle by crudely approximating it for seven days is just so irritating.
    Anyway, I thought this was a really good post, and I like your rundown of the “per week” numbers people come up with.

  • http://null Svend

    I doubt that a “Healthy Food Supplement” would go towards healthier food in most cases, but who am I to judge how a person structures their budget?
    More ideas on how to stretch a dollar are good, but you’re right about how patronizing they can seem if delivered by someone who is out of touch.

  • http://null Vincent Clement

    Yet another “the government needs to do something” diatribe from the Torontoist. Why don’t I read more about people helping other people? Why don’t I read about suggestions about community organizations helping low income families.
    A whole neighbourhood can get together and fight Smart Centres but they can’t get together and help the less fortunate in their neighbourhood?
    Why does Torontoist insist that the only solution is for government to spend more money?
    And don’t even get me going about the Medical Officers of Health. If they had their way they would legislate every aspect of our lives based on the flawed premise that only they know better.

  • http://undefined Don McAlpine

    I watched 20/20 the American television show last evening. June 19, 2009 It was interest to see how the media is preparing the public for the “new” financial reality of today and tomorrow. For the media, economists and politicians the destiny of those in North America is preordained. We all are to become substantially poorer.
    Nine months ago plants and factories were in full swing. Everything was good. What has changed within the last period of time? Are the plants and factories destroyed? Have people suddenly decided they can no longer work? The answer is of course is a matter of economics. Our economic system called capitalism has failed. When corporation are in charge of running the economic affairs of all the people, their concern is not for the welfare for the individuals within any geographic area. Their concerns are profits and quarterly reports to shareholders. Economic decision-making is not in the government’s hands but in the corporate offices of the globe. Government as our current economic problems demonstrates, has to respond to the errors of the investor/corporation. Governments pick up the pieces and try to regulate an economic system that they don’t control.
    Ontario has been economically hard hit. 17 percent of economic activity was based upon manufacturing. Today, it has dropped to 13 percent and is still dropping. Manufacturing is unique in economic terms. It adds wealth to the coffers of a nation. It employees people with higher wages then most other sectors. The economic system is at fault, not the workers. Corporations are driven by completion to the least expense geographic area in which to produce goods.
    The people that suffer the most are the unemployed, retired and those disabled. While costs of living rises these groups are on fixed incomes. What is being asked of them is that they “perform more efficiently”. They have no control or methods to increase their incomes but to beg for enough to eat and pay rent and utilities.
    Many in the public believe that there is pervasive fraud within the system. If that is the case then route it out. I don’t think you will find many people living on “public” funding objecting to that.
    For the majority, please, they are in desperate need of financial help.

Weather forecast by WP Wunderground & Denver Snow Service