http://tinyurl.com/btow3
--------------------------------------
 There is a deadly cost to cutting social programs, says Linda McQuaig

Toronto Star, Jan. 1, 2006

Ten years ago, Mike Harris slashed Ontario's welfare rates by 22 per cent,
thereby cutting by almost one-quarter the incomes of Ontario's most
vulnerable families.

The young kids in those vulnerable families are now teenagers. Recently,
there's been an upsurge in violent crime by gangs of teenagers. Is it
far-fetched to think there might be a connection?

There's ample research to show that conditions of poverty, economic
disparity and social marginalization are among the factors that lead to
crime, notes Wendy Cukier, who teaches justice studies at Ryerson
University.

But in recent years, our ruling elites have steadfastly ignored such
well-documented and intuitively obvious connections, as they've redirected
an ever bigger share of the national income to themselves, via tax cuts.

That was why Harris cut welfare rates — to deliver tax cuts, with the
biggest tax savings going to the richest members of society. The Harris
policies took money from the poor and handed it to the rich.

Did we really think this wouldn't affect poorer children, who already faced
more difficulties than their schoolmates?

Of course, during the Depression, people suffered great poverty without
turning to crime. But back then poverty was the norm. Today's poor live
amid general affluence, giving them a dangerous sense of exclusion from the
mainstream.

The Harris government also cut spending on an array of programs aimed at
ensuring disadvantaged kids integrate into the mainstream. It cut funds for
teaching English to immigrants, for social workers in the schools, for
community recreation.

And when some kids behaved badly, it banned them from school with a "zero
tolerance" policy. Where did we think they would go?

For an angry teen who feels excluded from the mainstream, a gang offers a
sense of belonging, prestige, dignity and status among his peers. The
mainstream offers less and less.

Of course, the mainstream offers jail. The Boxing Day slaying has renewed
calls for toughening up our criminal justice system.

That's understandable. But it's also what we've been doing for the past
decade. We've toughened up our laws considerably, including mandatory
minimum sentences for gun-related crimes.

The courts generally deal harshly with violent criminals — as they should.

But if we really want to make this a liveable society, not just enjoy the
satisfaction of locking up bad people, we should intervene much earlier.

We still don't seem to grasp the connection between slashing social
supports and social breakdown, including violent crime.

In the midst of the current election campaign, the Liberals and the
Conservatives are promising massive tax cuts, rather than massive social
re-investment.

Tax cuts may put more cash in our pockets. But are we really better off if
we have more cash for shopping — yet no longer feel safe to go shopping?

Economics teaches us there's no such thing as a free lunch. Recent
experience in Toronto should remind us there's no such thing as a free tax
cut.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator.
[log in to unmask]