Letters, Jan. 31

Paying a fair share

Re: “Failure of public system”; “Countering despair” (Letters, Jan. 29)

I agree with the letters by Ken Houssin and Rob Miller.

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding of the shortfall for health-care funding and protection of our environment, etc. is because the obscenely wealthy (those taking, not making, millions of dollars each every year as income, such as top CEOs) are not paying marginal tax rates at the levels that they used to.

Top marginal tax rates for those getting more than say a million dollars (in today’s dollars) a year from 1942-1963 used to be about 70 per cent in Canada, 94 per cent in the U.S. and a whopping 99 per cent in Britain and paid off the wasted 15 years of Depression and Second World War and ushered in a golden age of socialism which was fully funded initially.

Then came Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. and Ronald Reagan in the U.S. who were aped by others ever since and the very wealthy take even more but pay even less in taxes, culminating in the present day where the worst parasites were front and centre at the latest U.S. presidential inauguration a year ago.

Smedley Butler, a retired U.S. Marine Corps. major-general, spelled it all out in his speeches and subsequent little book called War is a Racket, written in 1935, which presaged Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex.

We can’t afford universal health-care or reducing climate change and pollution, but we can always afford a third world war. Though this time we won’t have to pay for it after as it will be nuclear. No rich men in the graveyard.

Philanthropy for those at the very top of the heap is cheaper than paying taxes, and trickle-down economics has never worked for those supporting those at the top. Those lower down are spending every penny as they find things increasingly unaffordable. Paying taxes should be a privilege because it means you made money, and collectively we can afford the things most of us couldn’t individually, but only if everyone pays their fair share.

I have been told by an accountant that if the system was simplified, as little as 12 per cent paid by everyone on all income would solve our budget shortfalls. Tax cuts at the top mean loss of services and cost us all in the long run.

Andy Maxwell

Winnipeg

Considering credentials

Re: Health minister, nursing college square off over qualifications (Jan. 29)

I read the article with some considerable concern. It brought to mind an experience that occurred some years ago when my father was dying.

It was a weekend. My father was on oxygen and required an increase in the level. I rang for a nurse. A young women showed up. I was not sure she understood me because her grasp of English left something to be desired. She was so hesitant that I asked her whether she was a nurse or an aide. She assured me she was a nurse. She was still hesitant to touch the equipment.

Fortunately, I had been paying attention in weeks prior and learned what to do adjust the oxygen. The nurse appeared relieved when I solved our “problem.” When I raised the matter with a senior nurse on Monday, and described the nurse to her, she looked at me with surprise. She indicated that the nurse was not supposed to be on her own seeing patients. She normally rode on ambulance calls where there were other medical professionals with her.

I don’t agree that one’s credentials should be accepted just because a nurse has been licensed in another province. Different provinces may have different standards. I know we are short of nurses, but I don’t know which is worse — to have no nurse available or to have one that creates a false sense of security among patients and families because the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba is required to license them without rigorous review of their credentials.

Dawn Harris

Gimli

Does the NDP not value the hard work and education it takes to become a licensed doctor or nurse?

The nurse in question was a midwife and their training is OK as long as there is a fully trained medical doctor on the premises in case of an emergency.

Allowing doctors or nurses with modified degrees will put everyone they encounter at risk.

Recently the NDP changed the entrance requirements to remove barriers, to boost paramedic training numbers.

I am sure that our health minister will remind us of the newly out-of-country recruited nurse who helped the blind to see and the deaf to hear. But we know that never happened.

Sure some university programs are modified, but these programs do not put people’s lives as risk.

Alfred Sansregret

Winnipeg

On judgment

Re: The tale of two churches (Think Tank, Jan. 28)

Thanks to Riley Enns for his insightful application of Christian teachings to the ICE operations in the U.S. It does seem that referencing that great mystery many call God adds credibility to almost any individual or collective human action, even when compassion tell us otherwise.

Nonetheless, I was troubled by Evans’ statement that “life is cheapened” without judgment. It seems to me that life is actually enriched by not being judgmental. It’s what many consider to be a central teaching in Christianity — even Pope Francis once opined, “Who am I to judge?”

Evans then offers a rather ominous warning about our ultimate personal accountability according to “God’s standards.” While I agree that because we are gifted with freedom, there are very real consequences to our actions, but positing the divine justice as distinct from human attempts leads to an increase of fear, the very opposite of love.

Scholars have tended to see love of God and neighbour (in the broadest application of the term) as central to any religion. If those intuitions over time are correct, then we need not fear any final judgment, so long as our guiding principle is the giving and receiving of divine of love.

What else could it be?

Edwin Buettner

Winnipeg

Judiciary must be independent

Re: Alberta judges urge respect after Smith said she wants to ‘direct’ them (Jan. 27)

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has repeatedly criticized judges’ decisions, often using the term “unelected” as though it were a denigrating descriptor.

Does she believe justice would be better served by a system where judges are elected? Where the ability to control media would allow the wealthy and powerful to choose judges who support their values and goals?

Smith has also expressed her wish that she could “direct” judges, which sounds like an echo of U.S. President Donald Trump’s frequent criticisms of judges and expressed desire to impeach those he doesn’t like.

The Alberta premier urgently needs a reminder that a completely independent judiciary is fundamental to a functioning democracy.

Ron Menec

Winnipeg