Dear Editor
Like many residents of this province — the vast majority, according to the latest polling — I am deeply troubled by the content and tenor of the Sask. Party’s recent budget.
It is to be expected that in tough fiscal times, with commodity prices low, the economy sluggish, we’ll hear the usual talk of “tightening our belts’ and “sharing the pain.”
I have always found such clichéd and over-used terms are usually inexactly applied and rarely observed in the breech.
And why, may I ask, should our economic pain be shared equally? Why shouldn’t those who have more, high income earners and individuals and companies that have thrived under the present environment, pay more to assist those of us who are struggling?
Some might cite the ridiculous assertion put forward by rightwing think tanks (funded by the super-rich, by the way) that if we tax the affluent at a high rate, it somehow takes away their incentive to be innovative, smothering their entrepreneurial spirit, stifling their ability to create wealth.
But history shows otherwise.
The greatest economic boom of the past century, which stretched from post-Second World War to the late 1960s, was achieved as a result of tax reform and income distribution on an unprecedented scale. In the United States, that bastion of capitalism, Franklyn Roosevelt, laid the ground work with his New Deal, but his progressive policies were carried forward by his predecessors, including a Republican president and former army chief of staff, Dwight Eisenhower. In fact, while Eisenhower was in office (1952-59), the highest tax rate for the rich was a whopping 90 per cent (it’s about a third of that today).
Through income tax reform, “luxury” taxes, increased fees on high end goods, a consumption surcharge that would only target those whose lifestyles allow them to indulge their expensive tastes, our governments can show their electorate they’re willing to direct a fair proportion of that “pain” where it more properly belongs.
Perhaps then it wouldn’t be so necessary to inflict such hardship on those of limited means, people who find our provincial transportation service (STC) the only viable option when planning a trip; or the hearing impaired; or the programs that support young mothers and other vulnerable parties.
Nor would we have to impose such an enormous reduction (58 per cent) on our provincial library budget, which will limit the ability of staff to create programming for children, support literacy initiatives and provide a wide variety of much-needed services to readers and researchers throughout Saskatchewan. Surely, this was one of the unkindest cuts of all. This extreme measure will have short- and long-term consequences and bespeaks of a government that puts little faith in institutions that provide opportunities for learning and advancement, personal development and critical thinking.
What is evident is the Sask. Party has fallen back on slash and burn policies of the past, instead of dealing with the systemic inequality and unfairness they have perpetuated in their more than 10 years in power.
Mr. Wall looks like a man who has run out of answers and, consequently, has decided to burn his house down in order to save on the cost of insuring and maintaining it.
His hubris is breathtaking but even among his supporters one can sense the unease.
And the smell of smoke is starting to get over-powering.
Cliff Burns
North Battleford
