That’s kind of like saying, "You should be grateful, I could have punched you in the nose, but I didn't."

The BC Government Newsroom released a story, on Sunday December 11^th, which was headlined; New residential care rates benefit low-income seniors

In this story they said that, “About a quarter of seniors in residential care in B.C. will now receive up to an additional $600 a year.”

The story continued that this was taking place as the result of “… the Province increasing the minimum monthly disposal income amount for residential care clients to accommodate a federal government supplement top-up of $50 … raising the minimum amount will allow low-income seniors to keep the new federal Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) increase … “

There was more to the story, but that is the real meat of it.  I have to say however, I honestly was confused about what exactly it was they were trying to say.  So I posed a question to others and asked:

Can someone correct me on this if I'm wrong?  I think what I read is that the "federal" government gave seniors an increase on pensions --- and Christy Clark's BC Liberals are trying to take credit because they didn't take it away by increasing "provincial taxes / fees"?

A friend (who would be knowledgeable in financial matters) responded fairly quickly by saying:

The way I read it, if they had left the rate structure as is, low-income seniors would have been penalized for that extra $50 a month from the federal government by seeing their care fees go up, so it is a sensible move by the provincial government.

Though, it could be that it was always the practice to keep the minimum disposable income amount in line with the amount seniors were getting from OAS and GIS, and we're just hearing about this now.

Again just for clarification I asked:

So, that is basically right then? … they were blowing their own horns for not taking something away from seniors?

To which he said:

If you mean they might be issuing press releases about staying consistent with an established practice, then yes, but to be  honest, I don't know for certain.   I remember when the federal government made cuts to income tax in the late 1990's/early 2000's.

Paul Ramsey said that BC residents should be grateful that the NDP government didn't increase provincial income taxes to offset the federal tax cuts and grab the money for themselves. "We could have increased the tax, but we didn't."

That’s kind of like saying "You should be grateful, I could have punched you in the nose, but I didn't."

WHAT WAS THAT?  SAY AGAIN …

"You should be grateful, I could have punched you in the nose, but I didn't."

Yesterday I commented on Christy Clark’s year-end video; and I mentioned Ms. Clark had said … open government gives us a sense of confidence that government is “working for us” rather than, "doing something to us”.

But wait … my friend said that the government was basically telling us, “You should be grateful, I could have punched you in the nose, but I didn't."

I guess the question we could ask then is how does that fit with the premieres “Families First Agenda for Change”; the comprehensive plan to tell people where Christy Clark sees the province going?

But then again one ungrateful British Columbian, hardened by a government that they believe is rudderless and with no direction, is no big deal ... right??    

Apparently not!  

Globe and Mail writer Rod Mickleburgh had a story, a couple months back, entitled; Is Clark’s ‘families first’ refrain past its best before date?  It began with the following:

Families, families, families. Is it just cranky old curmudgeons like me, or is anyone else wearying of Christy Clark’s constant mantra that almost everything the government does is aimed at putting “families first”?

He concluded by saying, “Sometimes, a slogan is just a slogan.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself!   I’m Alan Forseth in Kamloops … with the thoughts of one conservative