WHITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY MARCH 5, 1986, PAGES "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell Sometimes, I think government is a nasty practical joke that mankind, for some unknown reason, has played upon itself. That view was reinforced last week by our dull and uninspiring finance minister, Michael Wilson, when he presented the farce labelled a budget before the House of Commons and the nation. Perhaps what struck me most about the budget was that is clearly dèmonstrated that this government is a blind captive of the past and is simply terrified of the new, the bold, the innovative and the daring. In short, this government is completely without the ability to provide Canada with common sense, realistic and passionate leadership. Before the dedicated and faithful Tories in this community start demanding that my effigy be burned at the Four Corners in penance for my sin of disbelief in Brian Mulroney, the Wonder Boy from Baei Comeau I will try to explain myself. This budget has one prima'ry goal: i.e., to reduce the national deficit from $33.8 billion in this fiscal year to $29.8 billion. Not entirely an undesirable goal. But how, pray tell, will this goal be accomplished? There will be some spending cuts, But most of the money raised to reduce the government's debt will come from increased taxation. And, of course, the mid- die class will be the main target of the measure. This has been the way of government in this country for years. Government in this country, and it really doesn't matter what- party staffs the PMO or the of- fice of the Minister of Finance, has always believed that the way to prosperity and a balanced budget is through taxation of the middle class while leaving the super wealthy and the corporate sector to their own devises and without requiring them to pay their full share of the load. I am neither an economist nor a politician. But I have observed that neither economists nor politicians have been able to lead us out of our current economic mess. So, why shouldn't I, a layman, try? If any of the following makessense to you, don't tell Wilson - it would make his department and government em- barassed to know that an ordinary Canadian might be smarter than they are. It seems to be that the subject of a federal budget should be the creation of wealth. And that wealth should be used to improve the standard of living and future potential of all Canadians. So, how do we create wealth? Government has said that if tax breaks are granted to corporations and the superwealthy, they will invest money in them- selves and create new jobs. Well, government in this country has been doing precisely this for the last 10 or 15 years and we still have an unemployment rate of almost, but not quite, 10 percent. It appears to me, therefore, that tax con- cessions to corporations don't create new wealth through investment and creation of new jobs. And that is the key. How can Canada be a truly prosperous nation when almost one million of her citizens are unemployed and not making'a con- tribution to her economic life? Especially, when one million people represent 10 percent of her available labor force. If the government wants to lead the way to prosperity and a federal deficit of zero, it has to find the means whereby the unemployment rate is reduced to ideal three percent level. And, since giving tax breaks to the business sector is not accomplishing this goal, another means must be found. I know this is obvious, but the corporate sector is best stimulated by profit. It makes a profit through the sale of goods and services to the consumer. The more the consumer buys, the greater a cor- poration's profitability. For example, if people stopped buying cars, General Motors-and her three partners-in-crime would be bankrupt overnight. From where I sit, what we have to do is increase the disposable income of the consumer. How do we do that? I read somewhere once that if we added up all the tax we pay to all levels of government in one year (that includes federal and provincial income tax, sales taxes, indirect taxes, hidden taxes, property taxes and so on, and so on) it would amount to a staggering 54 percent or more of what we earn in one year. We work six months of the year to simply, keep our municipal, provincial and federal governments living and working in the manner in which they have become accustomed. So, if the ordinary consumer wasn't forced to spend half his life working to support the government, it stands to reason that he would have a little more money with which to participate in the market. If the middle class was allowed the full benefit of its earning power, we won't need to give tax breaks to cor- porations. They could pay their full share of the load and still remain profitable because they will serve a middle class that is fully capable of participating in the market. Or simply put, if the average Canadian didn't have to pay the government 54 percent of his wages - he would have more money to buy cars, homes, furniture, toasters, clothes, etc. etc. The increased demands for manufactured and con- sumer goods would go a long way towards the expansion of our industry, and the creation of new jobs. With more people working, that means more money in the federal treasury. Money that can be used to ensure the proper and adequate defense of our nation, money to care for senior citizens, money for an adequate and modern education system and even money to pay off the deficit. To me, it seems obvious. The people who need the tax breaks from gover- nment are those people who have the greatest need and the greatest potential to participate in the consumer market. And since there are more members of the middle class than there are millionaires, it stands to reason that they have the best potential for creating wealth. This, by the way, is not socialism. It is free entreprise at its most fundamental and important level. Wealth is not created by the wealthy or by government. SEE IG. 12 WITH OUR FEET UP By Bill Swan Swan sets the world right Now that we've got February out of the way, we can attempt to get down to the serious work of get- ting the world back in order. Everybody knows that can't be done in February. As a month it suffers from several defects, not the least of which has to do with its location on the calendar. (Two schools of thought still battle over the cure to February. School one says February should be striken from the calendar completely, thus eliminating once and forever the February blahs. The other school says a saner solution would be to move February up to somewhere between May and June. Who could have blahs as the marigolds bloom?) Anyhow. As we attempt to shake the dandruff of February from our head, a few wayward thoughts wing by like decoy ducks: Whitby residents who are foolish enough to drive by choice in the city neighboring to the east should take my word of advice: don't. Those who must drive in that city to the east should only do so cautiously. The reason? Good old Oshawa boasts of being home to the worst drivers in Ontario. That's not just a fact, it's my opinion as well. Where else would you find drivers boasting about what is known inter- nationally as the Oshawa Turn. Drivers who have encountered the sheer weight of New York traffic and the chaos and unpredictability of Montreal traffic have been known to break down in tears when encountering the Oshawa Turn. The turn itself is quite simple. Anywhere else it would be called a left turn. But in Oshawa, left turns in traffic are executed in a fashion similar to moves to the political left in the same city: cut 'em as short as possible. The action.looks something like this: the driver attempting the turn approaches his/her turn. If no traffic is occupying the roadway immediately in front of the vehicle, the driver drifts left. This means cutting across adjacent lanes theoretically belonging to traffic moving in the opposite direc- tion. Cars executing this turn have been known to collide head-on with cars standing at a stop sign waiting for a break in the traffic. The-city-to-the-east also doubles as the home of the Milk-Store-Idle. This is the brilliant maneuver whereby the driver of a car parks as close to the curb by the front door of a milk store. Then either he or his passenger strolls in to buy milk, cigarettes, four magazines and to browse over the lottery tickets. The drivers who do this are always overweight, buy lottery tickets in $30 lots, and usually smoke cigars. They also prefer pornographie movies, mainly, I suppose, to compensate for their lack of imagination. Keen observers have recorded two main variations of the Milk-Store-Idle. The first takes place on a Sunday evening, amid the barren parking lot. With the whole parking lot to pick from, our friendly driver parks where? Rightl Directly in front of the door, as close to the curb as possible. The second variation takes place on a Friday evening, about 5:55 p.m. at the peak of traffic and congestion at the neighborhood plaza. The parking lot is jammed. Not one space exists. Where does the driver park? Right.l Directly in front of the milk store door, as close to the curb as possible. You are about to say that Whitby has some drivers like that. But that isn't true. Drivers who make Oshawa turns and perform the Milk-Store- Idle are by definition from Oshawa. Oshawa exports them, like the Japanese do cars, hoping the world will notice. Whitby must, by the laws of nice neighboring, tolerate these jerks. The nice neighboring rules also forbids the solution that has emerged in Oshawa it- self. There, roving bands of juvenile delinquents will wait outside a milk store waiting for a driver to leave a car running while they run in to the store. They get an average of one a week. Say what you will about juvenile delinquents, you can bet these kids will not grow up to be stupid enough to perform the Milk-Store-Idle.