To the editor:
Re: “Letter: “Poor job on child poverty story,” Dec 10.
How ironic that exactly two weeks before Christmas, the Courier chose to devote its entire Mailbox space to a two-column “are there no workhouses” style of tirade against programs to fight child poverty. Too bad, Tiny Tim. The writer throws all responsibility back onto the parents, refusing to recognize that effort alone (“personal responsibility”) without opportunities, will not raise a person from poverty. And whether or not a child’s parents are as resourceful and committed as possible (as most are) or lost in their own problems, the child does not deserve deprivation, hunger, cold, impaired health and limited hopes and opportunities.
It is unconscionable for “observers” to assert that people working in social service in the DTES “do not want to see an end to poverty.” Those workers are out there every day doing their best to help people cope with life-destroying challenges. Further, the complaint that “hard working middle class people” are being “bled white” by taxes is farcical.
Typical middle class Canadians enjoy warm homes, blankets on their clean beds, ample food, comfy clothes, and various electronic goodies.
Meanwhile, poor kids may not have proper pyjamas, do not have their moms home at night because mom has to work two jobs to pay the rent, eat poorly and go to school hungry.
The great Scottish economist Adam Smith asserted that it is opportunity, not the pinch of poverty, that motivates people to be industrious — but poverty cancels opportunities. Smith recognized that good government (requiring taxes), justice, and personal equality are essential to strong economies. But whatever the rationale, maybe at this time of year we should be thinking more of “suffer the little children” than of our bank balances.
Joan Bunn,
Vancouver
