Follow the money (the rich got richer)

(The graph above is given in constant 2000 dollars; it is based on a chart also available at StatsCan.)

The 1990s was a decade of fabulous riches. The Liberals -- with the help of free trade agreements negotiated by the Conservatives -- slashed government spending in 1995 by 19%, then slew the deficit, then ushered in a golden age of surpluses and tax cuts. The sun shone down on all of us.

Canada did so well during the 1990s, that the richest Canadians (the top tenth) saw their income go up by 15%! If only the rest of us were so blessed... With a rise in prices of 1.7% during the same period (UN Human Development Index), the bottom 60% of Canadians would see complete stagnation of their spending power, or worse.

The difference between the gains made by the best-off (in red) and everyone else (in green) is pretty incredible.

An online StatsCan report adds, "In 2000, the top 10% of families had incomes above $117,850. The combined income of these families accounted for 28% of the total income of all Canadian families. They accounted for 26% of the total income in 1990."

If this surprises you, that's because it's a story the media doesn't touch, for reasons best known to the owners and editors within the income group least eager to draw attention to its exceptional good luck.

Now, until the 2006 census, we won't have another study detailed enough to tell us how income groups in Canada have fared since 2000.

But, at least regarding the least fortunate Canadians, we can guess. In 2000, according to the Canadian Association of Food Banks, 726,902 people in Canada received emergency groceries from a food bank during the month of March 2000 (almost double the 1989 figure). This year, the 2005 report states that this number has grown to 823,856 -- of whom 40% are children. These numbers don't include users of soup kitchens -- the poorest of the poor.

I'll be blogging more about poverty soon. But for now, we should remember that whenever we're thinking about the Liberal record, we're talking about a federal government on whose watch only the wealthiest made substantial gains, the middle hasn't budged, and the poorest have gotten not just poorer -- but are going hungry in ever greater numbers.

--

Next up, what Michael Ignatieff really thinks. Not about Ukrainians, but about America's noble mission to spread Jeffersonion liberty like peanut butter over the entire world.

A teaser, from the professor himself:

"A liberal society cannot be defended by herbivores. We need carnivores to save us, but we had better make sure our meat-eaters hunt only on our orders."

Obviously, he's not a vegan.

--

My thanks to David Lizoain and Inaki Mondragon for their help in this research. As always, dear reader, if you come across information you think I'd find useful, please send it over to aldana@danielaldana.net.