Brilliant spinning places welfare recipients in cottages

When the Ontario government tried to manufacture an image of welfare recipients as affluent cottage owners, the Ottawa Citizen became a willing participant in this "theatre" of the absurd

By: Richard Shillington

  The poor should fire their spin doctors because they're getting terrible press. They can't expect their share of tax cuts and hand-outs without media advisors skilled at getting their message out. I can't recommend any by name but the Ottawa Citizen might be able to help.
  On November 19, 1999, the Ontario government announced more cuts to welfare. What was the headline in the Ottawa Citizen? "No cottages for welfare claimants".
  Now, you know how that plays to stereotypes. "It's bad enough that my taxes pay for their beer. But you mean I've been paying for their cottages too?"
 

A single mom with one child gets about $1,000 a month in welfare benefits. But the Harris government needed to portray welfare recipients as wealthy, to justify another round of poor-bashing.

  Pause for a truth break. I was under the impression that existing regulations already compelled people to sell off assets such as cottages before they became eligible to collect welfare. When I checked with some social worker friends, I discovered that, true enough, a few welfare recipients could have an interest in a cottage. For example, if they had joint ownership with their siblings, and their share could not be sold, they could still collect welfare. Out of the 1 million Ontarians on welfare, there were fewer than 50 people in this situation. Hardly worthy of headlines.
  But how was the government going to force them to sell what couldn't be sold? If the existing regulations forbid ownership, what was the change being contemplated in November?
  To determine this I called my MPP John Baird's office; he's also the Minister of Social Services - lucky me. Two weeks and no call - a lapse? I called again. This time I talked to a person who took the message. That was three months ago. No response. I have an answering machine.
  Well, he's got an uphill fight winning my vote next time.
  A single mom with one child gets about $1,000 per month. But welfare recipients - wealthy? Who dreamed this up?
  You can imagine the meeting between politicos and the spin doctors (picture Jerry Seinfeld and George at the coffee shop).
  "How do we paint welfare recipients to justify further kicks at their collective butt?"
  "Could we do lazy?"
  "Been there - done that. Everybody's done lazy."
  "Okay, okay - crooked, stupid, poor parents, poor readers?"
  "Been done to death."
  "What about wealthy?"
  "Huh????"
  "Yeah, we tell people we'll force them to sell their luxuries."
  "These people don't have anything."
  "Don't be so negative … work with me…"
  "If you could convince people that welfare families had cottages - you'd be a genius - the best in spin doctor in New York."
  "Please Jerry - the world."
  And so the plan was hatched to manufacture a phony crisis - the illusion of another welfare rip-off.
  "Welfare recipients must sell cottages."
  "But, we'll let them keep their furs and jewelry because it's the decent thing to do."
  "Sometimes you can be too nice."
  The Ottawa Citizen again congratulated the government on clamping down on cottages, in an editorial it ran in February.
  "It's probably a good thing that people must sell their cottages before they can start collecting welfare benefits… While there's a strong element of theatre, rather than substance, to various government 'crackdowns' on abuse of public programs, they send out a message of government restraint that is not bad."
  The comment about 'theatre' suggests that they knew it was make-believe all along.
  To some, painting welfare claimants as wealthy is defensible if it justifies restraint.
  But if you or I made up this kind of stuff, who would believe us?

Richard Shillington, Ph.D., is a statistician who specializes in the quantitative analysis of health, social and economic policy. He appears regularly before committees of the House of Commons and the Senate, and frequently provides commentaries for television, radio and newspapers on issues of taxation, human rights and social policy. Richard's Straight Goods column appears weekly.

Other articles from Richard Shillington
  Poor but proud in Pakistan
  Federal policy flip-flops kill politics
  What I learned on my Pakistani vacation
  Budget: something for everyone - with any political clout - and nothing for Canada's poorest families
  Death by the rules
  House Finance Committee gives more windfalls to wealthy; rotten apples to poor kids
  Attn: Paul Martin - a REAL "children's budget", please
  A poor measure of poverty
  Are RRSPs really for you?

[ Front Page ]