A letter appeared today in The Vancouver Sun from Dr. Tom Perry as follows:
"Is it ethical to proceed with spending more than $1 billion on security for the "Olympic family" or should we divert at least some of those dollars, police and military personnel and health workers to Haiti, where they could really make us proud to be Canadians?
I volunteer my share of Olympic tax dollars for Haiti, instead of Whistler. How about it, Prime Minister Harper and Premier Campbell?"
Dr. Perry is the former socialist Vancouver MLA that brought us the bicycle helmet law among other NDP annoyances. In his letter he can be seen arguing for the freedom to choose however, judging by his letter and past intrusive (albeit unenforceable) legislation, dictating how we dress to ride our bicycles, he clearly does not support freedom to choose for others beside himself.
You see the questions he should really be asking in his letter are: "Is it ethical to confiscate tax dollars to pay for a party?". Or, "Is it ethical to ask only Vancouver citizens in a vote whether they want the Olympics, only to go ahead and proceed anyway while expecting the rest of BC and Canada to pay?" Or maybe, "Is it ethical to confiscate money to pay for discretionary events, thereby reducing money available to devote to more important events... like helping the people of Haiti?".
He does not ask the above, rather he wants Canadians and BC'ers to divert his tax dollars being spent on the Olympics security to be spent in Haiti instead.
I don't get it. Presumably in the eyes of anti choice tax and spenders like Dr. Perry, Olympics security is a discretionary expense and not one of necessity.
Wrong...unless complete incompetence reigns over those responsible for Olympic security budgeting (admittedly a distinct possibility) and we have been misled, security is not discretionary.
However, the Olympics themselves were discretionary and if taxes were only imposed strictly for necessity, Dr. Perry and the rest of us would not have to pay for the Olympics. Therefore redirecting taxes from security would be a moot point and the Dr. would be free to take his money and send it where ever he wants. I wonder if he voted yes for the Olympics?
Ironically the outcome, of this "no choice" discretionary spending for a party which has been imposed on Dr. Perry and everybody else, has been and will be less choice in both where and how we spend money.
Haiti should be a wake up call in defining discretionary vs necessary.
