OPINION:The rhetoric about looking after the poor masks consolidation of wealth among the elite, writes Vincent Browne
SEVERAL TIMES in his Budget speech yesterday Brian Lenihan spoke of "protecting the most vulnerable".
It echoed much of what Brian Cowen said last May in the course of those glorious celebrations of his becoming Taoiseach. It is part of the rhetoric of our political culture, part of our political claptrap. For in reality it means nothing at all, aside from a mask for what is really happening: the consolidation of the wealth and power of an elite and yesterday's Budget was very much part of that project.
What depths of self-delusion does it take to talk about "protecting the most vulnerable" when, at the same time, a levy of 1 per cent is put on the incomes of even those too poor to get into the existing tax net? When the entire Budget is deliberately calculated to doing nothing at all about the scale of even consistent poverty? (There are at least 300,000 people living in consistent poverty, which means living in income poverty and not being able to afford basic necessities such as new clothes; not having the money to buy food such as meat or fish; not being able to heat their homes; or having to go into debt to pay ordinary household bills.) Even Fianna Fáil and Minister for Social and Family Affairs Mary Hanafin acknowledge that consistent poverty is a major problem! Some of those in consistent poverty will now be required to pay the 1 per cent income levy.
How do they talk about "protecting the most vulnerable" when they slash expenditure on education? Granted, the overall figures suggest an allocation just above the rate of inflation, but how about the increase in the numbers of people entering the education system?
Expenditure on health doesn't even match the rate of inflation. Expect longer waiting lists, more people on trolleys, more premature deaths. Already over 5,000 people die prematurely here every year because of the scale of inequality in this society. People in the lower occupational groups die prematurely of cancers, cardiovascular diseases and other fatal diseases at a rate of twice, three times, six times, even 20 times the rate of people in the higher occupational groups. This Budget means the premature death rate will increase, killing them softly with the words "protecting the most vulnerable".
However, they have rowed back on medical cards for the over-70s - and what a scam that was. First proposed in the run-up to the 2002 general election, without any consultation with the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO), it was implemented at the behest of the caring profession represented by the IMO (the GPs). And this was only done by way of an agreement to pay GPs three times the rate for treating rich medical card holders over 70 as is paid for treating poor medical card holders, whether over 70 or not. And guess what happened? Those caring GPs high-tailed it to the richer pickings of the richer areas.
There was no need yesterday for the austerity inflicted on "the most vulnerable". We are a very rich society. The gross national income is €162 billion. Say the State needs a generous one-third of this to supply security, the justice system, policing, education, health care and the rest (aside from social welfare). That would be €54 billion: way in excess of what Brian Lenihan is proposing to spend, including social welfare, next year and no budget deficits or borrowings. That leaves €108 billion for the 1.4 million households, which works out at €77,000 per household. No problem. We can all live on that. No poverty, no premature deaths because of inequality.
Some people that we need to stick around would, perhaps, sulk and leave if they got only €77,000. Okay, let's agree to give 20 per cent of people twice that figure on average. So, they get €43 billion and the rest of us have to make do with €65 billion, which leaves us with €58,000 per household. That's still okay, for the State would be providing entirely free health and education and there would be lots of public transport and housing.
All right, say they need more, three times the average, €231,000 per household. This would still leave €43 billion for the rest of us, which would work out at €38,000 per household. We could settle for that even if 80 per cent of the population were getting only one-third of the annual national income.
The problem is, such a scale of inequality is not enough for the system we claim is "protecting the most vulnerable". The top earners want far more than twice or three times as much as the average. And nobody thinks this is at all odd.
There is one State agency that has consistently drawn attention to the scale of poverty and inequality here. And guess what is to happen to that in the "roll out" of the cutbacks, "going forward"? It is going to be done away with. I am referring to the Combat Poverty Agency and the spin will be that it is to be incorporated into the Office of Social Inclusion, which is part of Mary Hanafin's Department of Social and Family Affairs. As such it will lose its independence and will be shut up. More of "protecting the most vulnerable".