I don’t buy for a minute that “Canadians have to come to terms with the idea of a higher retirement age” as expressed recently by M. Sonneberg, London Free Press (Feb. 7). Just because the title of his news article (Pension reform requires sacrifice from everyone) seems to suggests he’s offering a balanced viewpoint doesn’t make it palatable to me.
[2,012 Challenges in Modern Times - a brilliant book: photo GH]
Years ago my parents took my siblings and me to an Anglican Church pot-luck picnic in Otterville, a village in the southern part of Oxford County. As I recall, after sitting on a cannon that overlooked a bridge near the picnic area (During my turn astride the barrel, I pretended to blow up the people coming across the bridge who were not carrying large picnic baskets. “No free food for you!” Boom!! “No free food for you!” Boom!!), my ten-year old eyeballs grew as round as saucers when a saw all the desserts spread upon one particular table.
I was asked to eat a sandwich first, which didn’t sound reasonable at the time. So I ate one containing round bologna slices, very quickly, but when something got caught in my throat I began to cough and splutter.
I imagine my mother said, “Don’t eat so quickly.”
Tears streamed from my eyes. I gasped and gagged.
I imagine my siblings said, “Snot is coming out your nose. Ee-yuck.”
I turned beet red.
I imagine my father noticed and smacked me on the back.
Fortunately, though I couldn’t speak, I had enough sense to reach as far back into my throat as I could to grab onto the offending material. I’m sure the scene is one my folks remembered for some time. They likely wondered what on earth I was doing with three or four fingers in my mouth.
["I didn't make that sandwich. Maybe Gladys Cole," says Edith Harrison, circa 1959]
I almost made myself throw up. But I snagged what I knew hid deep inside. I caught the end of the thin plastic wrap that someone had forgotten to peel off the bologna slices and pulled it up from my esophagus, past my wind pipe (or out of my wind pipe) and out of my mouth.
Very few onlookers were impressed as I held it up for inspection.
And I could finally breathe. How lovely. I took several deep breaths.
If I had the mature presence of mind then that I have today I would have said, “Well, it’s time for some dessert, eh.” I likely just wiped my nose on my sleeve and finished the sandwich.
As a result of that experience, however, I no longer eat bologna without looking at it very carefully first. And in my estimation, Sonneberg’s bologna doesn’t pass the sniff test, and greasing the rails of his hasty editorializing doesn’t help matters.
Greasy Factoid 3: “As a means of helping Canada balance its books, it is not asking too much of an aging population to log two more years of work before collecting the federal pension.”
Gord says... In all the years that the government’s books have not been balanced, and there have been more than a few, how many times has a Prime Minister talked about making people “log two more years of work” in order to create a revenue stream for himself? And once the door is open, when will he ask for three, then four more years of work so that we can all work together to balance his books?
Before any senior citizens reach for their wallets they should ask, why are Conservative PM Harper’s books so out of balance that he must with-hold their long awaited benefits? What has happened to his primary revenue streams over the years? Why does this smell like bologna and social engineering all in the same sandwich?
Without answers to the above, Sonneberg and the PM may in fact be asking way too much to help Canada balance its books.
Greasy Factoid 4: “The Canadian economy is not as labour-intensive as it was 40 years ago. And workers today are in better condition in their 60s than their predecessors.”
Gord says... Just because workers are not breaking their back as often (machines are doing more of the work in some cases) doesn’t mean they have to work longer to help PM Harper balance his budget. And because people are reaching their 60s in better shape could also mean they will benefit more from the benefits they supported through taxation policies. (Thus the term OAS ‘benefits’.
Greasy Factoid 5: “Phasing in 67 as the new retirement age at the rate of one month per year for 24 years should give everyone plenty of time to adjust.”
Gord says... Phasing in 66 as the new retirement age at the rate of one month per year for 12 years should give everyone plenty of time to adjust too. Let's do some more math. Phasing in 70 as the new retirement age at the rate of one month per year for 60 years should give everyone plenty of time to adjust as well, especially if everybody agreed with Sonneberg's hasty editorializing.
Do you?
Stay tuned. More to follow.
***
Please click here to read 2,012 Challenges in Modern Times PT 2
.
No comments:
Post a Comment