This is a reply to a letter submitted here recently by James Demetrick

“Liberal Budget Benefits All”. Jim disagrees.

I don’t know whether the  statement is completely true or false. Without a line by line analysis, no one  can know. But if there were any increases in spending in health care, education,  social services, or job creation it could be argued that is a benefit to  everyone either directly or indirectly. The size of the spending or benefit does  not impact the validity of the statement.

To answer Jim’s question “Will infrastructure investments garner feasible  financial returns annually or will they be nothing more than liabilities?”

These types of investments rarely are done on the basis of financial return  .The short term and long term social benefits to our society as a whole far  outweigh any financial return. Think in terms of something like  Oliver  without our parks. From the tone of Jims letter I would think this aspect of the  investment would be preferred to financial gain. Middle class and wealthy people  alike are entitled to a benefit from the taxes they pay as much as the  poor.

On the topic of the provincial deficit.

This deficit was created by successive governments as far back as I can  remember. There is no political party that can claim to be more financially  prudent than any other. Did you write letters to the editor and vote Liberal,  Conservative, Green or Social Credit when the N.D.P. had their turn at  increasing the deficit?

In regard to Jims criticism of  where the Liberal gov’t has spent our  taxes. (Education, health care, social services versus infrastructure and  subsidized job creation) I would suggest borrowing a book from the library on  basic economics. Government can invest taxes in the present (health care, social  services, bloated government and a host of other programs) or they can invest in  the future ( infrastructure, education, subsidies to new industry etc.). Whatever  the choice, in any sized economy, there are not enough resources (money) to do  both. Spend too much today and some go hungry in the future, spend too much on  the future and some go hungry today. Either way someone goes hungry. (It is a  little thing called opportunity cost that creates the shortage). Economics 101.

Jim, you are correct about the upcoming election. “Social justice and human  dignity” is one of the election issues. But you must ask from an economic  perspective what is affordable now and in the future?

The periods of economic uncertainty you refer to are a worldwide problem,  and are neither caused by or will be solved by any government we choose to elect  in B.C.

When you talk of trust in politicians, I lost mine a long time ago. I think  it happened when the priority of our elected officials changed to the demands of  the party rather than the needs of the province and its people. More and more we  see our politicians unable to respond unless they check with the party  leadership. Heck, sometimes even the leaders have to check before speaking or  defining policy.

We probably have the best example right here in our riding. Candidates from  both major political parties were ousted by party management. It seemed to me  that either one was capable of representing the needs of the people and the  province.

I remain doubtfully hopeful that one day our government will evolve to  include the best policies and people from both sides of the legislature to give  the people the best governance available at the time. Why do we continue to  eliminate half of our provinces talent and ideas on the basis of party  affiliation?

Dave Mattes

Policy of Oliver Daily News to print letters from citizens of the Oliver, Osoyoos and Okanagan Falls area.