Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 1997-01-22, Page 5Arthur Black THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22,1997 PAGE 5. Paranoia — the 90’s growth industry Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you Anon There are more of them than us Herb Caen Ah, sweet paranoia. I’m sure it has to be the major growth industry of the 90s. There was a time when being paranoid was a commitable offense. Nowadays, it qualifies as a lifestyle. Consider: one in eight Americans think that the entire NASA space program is a hoax. That all those moon walks and Mars probes and space shuttles were performed by actors on a movie set somewhere in rural Arizona. A significant number of Americans believe that the bodies of space aliens are being kept on ice at a secret U.S. Air Force base in Nevada. That JFK was murdered by assassins hired by his own vice-president. That Elvis is alive, eating burgers and working the gas pumps at a service station in Wyoming. Poor, gullible Americans. Just a while ago we were treated to the spectacle of Pierre Salinger, once press secretary to the president, railing on about how he had proof that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by a U.S. missile. International Scene By Raymond Canon Those nasty deficits You have heard a great deal about deficit financing and I know that you are dying to find out the truth about them. Are they as bad as they are made out to be, or are they just another economic statistic that must be digested and which are no worse or no better than any of the other things that government has to deal with? This question is all the more pertinent in Canada since not only have we resorted to deficits, as an addict does to dope, but, since we have such a small population, we have been unable, for years, to finance our shortfalls by borrowing on the domestic markets. We have had to go, hat in hand, to foreign lenders and persuade them that lending to Canadians was preferable to all the other places they might choose to lend their money. Where did it all start? Well, the idea came in the 1930s from the leachings of the great English economist John Maynard Keynes, who was trying to find ways of getting us out of the great depression that plagued the whole western world with the exception of Nazi Germany who was getting ready for war. What Keynes suggested, in a nutshell, was that governments should borrow and spend during the trough of the business cycle and pay it back during the next peak stage. The first part of this formula proved to be politically more acceptable than the second He didn't and it wasn't. But that won't quench the flames of galloping American paranoia. The Internet is currently awash with every kind of conspiracy theory you can imagine - and a couple of dozen you couldn't. Want to hear how the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms blew up their own building in Oklahoma City? How the Freemasons intend to overthrow the U.S. Government? How Hillary Clinton is actually the Antichrist in drag? It's all on the Internet. In tiresome, irrational detail. Ah, those dopey, gormless Americans. Why couldn't they take a lesson from their more mature, rational neighbours to the north? To wit: us. Canadians. We Canucks would never fall for that loopy, half-baked, paranoid conspiracy stuff. We’re far too sensible. 'Way too wise to the ways of the world. And why wouldn't we be? I mean we Canucks live in a land where: Our official government opposition is a party whose mandate is the destruction of Canada. Our 'National' Hockey League is composed of 26 teams. Six of which are Canadian. Our Canadian Football League is populated almost exclusively by American players. Our government fisheries experts have managed to completely destroy the East Coast cod stocks and all but obliterate the West Coast salmon fishery. part; governments accepted it with alacrity. The second part was more or less forgotten. It is to the credit of Canadian governments that they managed to resist the temptation for the most part until the 1970s. The culprit who started it all off was none other than Pierre Elliot Trudeau. I have never credited Mr. Trudeau with too much economic wisdom, but I won’t get into that at this point. Suffice it to say that the road to economic hell like any other variety of that oft quoted location, is paved with good intentions which are seldom carried out. It goes without saying that our debt kept gelling bigger and bigger which meant that we had to earmark an ever larger percentage of our tax revenues to just pay the interest, never mind paying off any of the principal. Let’s take a look at what happens when you have to resort to foreign lenders to finance part of your debt as we did in the 1980s. The interest on that borrowing goes out of the country and is lost almost totally to Canadians since there is no law that says the foreigners have to spend this interest in Canada. I think that, if Canadian taxpayers knew precisely where their money was going as far as the interest on the national debt was concerned, they would be more anxious to gel rid of the debt. Let’s assume that we manage to balance our budget. This does not mean for one minute that we stop paying money to foreign lenders. You have to keep in mind that the $600 billion that we have borrowed already is still there and interest has to be paid on it. Not that our glorious leaders confine their depredations to fish. Those same two-faced politicians, marching lock-step with our business leaders, have, over the past several years, embarked on a frenzy of coast-to-coast downsizing and social program slashing. They clearly believe that the best way to make Canada healthy is to pul as many people out of work just as quickly as possible. Not including themselves bien sur. This cunning economic strategy from a party of 'Liberals' who got themselves elected on a promise of "jobs, jobs, jobs". We Canadians are blessed to live in a land in which the last two physical structures that serve to hold our country together, to ensure that Prince Edward Islanders have something in common with North West Territorians - to make Canadians somehow different and distinct from Nebraskans or New Hamshireites - I'm talking about the railways and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - are being systematically dismantled and gutted by politicians who were elected specifically to keep us together. It is our dubious fate to inhabit a country in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - the very symbol and essence of what Canada stands for at home and abroad - has been, for the purposes of "advertising and marketing" turned over to . .. The Walt Disney Corporation of Florida. Now c’mon ... What are you - nuts? What do Canadians have to be paranoid about? As in the above example, a lot of that interest continues to flow out of the country and is lost to us. Thus the financial millstone is still around our neck, and will be, far into the future. The debt has been run up mainly to finance our social welfare programs. Yet, even if we keep it in the domestic economy, the effects are injurious. The debt that has been financed in Canada is mainly in the hands of more affluent Canadians, not to mention corporations. This results, in effect, in a flow of money out of the pockets of lower income people who pay taxes into the hands of the more prosperous sectors. That should be enough to make any taxpayer mad and demand that governments stop living on borrowed money. However, many of the very people who are hurt most by the large interest payments are frequently the ones who want to continue getting the same social welfare payments they have in the past. You can’t have it both ways. In the meantime there are a lol of foreign lenders who think Canada is a safe place in which to invest their money and who will continue lending it to us as long as we go on living on borrowed money. Fortunately we have learned to say no to a certain extent but we need to continue grasping the nettle. Nobody ever said it would be easy. « A Final Thought People who expect the worst usually find it. Thanks to those who do The talk right now, in every coffee shop, on ever comer, at every gathering, is bound to at least touch on the provincial government's big announcements last week regarding education restructuring, social services and property tax reform. It would therefore seem logical for me to use this space to share my thoughts on the subject. However, such topics thwart me in my efforts to be tolerant, so I choose instead to focus my attentions on another group, one which like this government is also known for blowing smoke. Today (Wednesday, Jan. 22) is "Weedless Wednesday". Sponsored by the Huron County Smoke-free Coalition it is offering, with the assistance of local restaurateurs, a welcome change for non-smokers. For one day, numerous eating spots in the county will be asking their nicotine addicted patrons to butt out. To those who do, thank you. Let me say first that I do have some sympathies for smokers. For several years of my life I inhaled up to two packs a day. I started at the age of 12 essentially due to peer pressure and a naive belief that I could stop any time. When being 'cool' didn't matter to me anymore, I was surprised to discover that 'lighting up' did. Knowing the ill effects on my health and my family's, and unable to find a good reason for smoking other than the pyschological, I decided it was time to quit. And this is why my sympathies falter. After three attempts to stop, I did. I am no longer polluting my lungs, not to mention those of the innocent near me. Therefore, when I cannot avoid second-hand smoke I must admit I become a little defensive. Recently one of my children came home after lunching with friends. Now every ex­ smoker will agree that the smell is something you really notice after you quit, and quite simply, my kid reeked. Even after shampooing, we could still smell the stale odour. I questioned her on why she didn't ask her friends to not smoke through the meal. Her response was she didn't feel it was something she could do, that it infringed on their rights. What about her rights, I asked. I told her most smokers are courteous; they appreciate that their habit is not appreciated by everyone. Besides is it really too much to ask to refrain for one hour? Even in my tobacco heydays I could hold out that long. Certainly, it is an issue of rights. Each individual should be allowed to do what they want within the law. However, while the smoker al dinner, at a dance or in a bar, can take it outside for a few minutes, the choice of the non-smoker is to go home. Studies have proven that second hand smoke is more than a nuisance; it is harmful to everyone exposed to it. The children of smoking parents are more likely to develop ear infections, asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia. And as someone who quit a two-pack a day habit, not easily, I re-iterate, it's irritating to be forced to inhale someone else's. I note once again, that most smokers are considerate. But for those who opt to blow smoke today may this decision make you as popular as most of our politicians.