Chong's food bill tough to swallow
Tough economic times  are a particularly sensitive time to be learning that our political leaders  think  belt-tightening doesn’t apply to them.
Admittedly, news of  elected officials pushing the limits on how much of the public dollar they’re  spending on themselves is unsettling at the best of times. 
But when a province is  in the midst of wiping out services and supports for people who really, really  need them, it is truly offensive to hear about things like Ida Chong making  full use of her publicly funded meal plan.   
We paid for $6,000  worth of restaurant eating for the Oak Bay-Gordon Head MLA last year.   Chong   was within her rights to claim it, mind you; legislature rules allow even local MLAs to charge up to $61 a  day for restaurant meals while on the job in Victoria.
But would you do it?  If services and supports were crashing all around you during a terrible economic  year and it was your job to set things right, would you feel comfortable claiming  $6,000 in restaurant tabs? 
Not to put too  dramatic a point on it, but little children suffered in B.C. so that Ida Chong could  avoid packing a bagged lunch. 
Her restaurant bill  was equivalent to almost five months of full-time work for somebody earning  minimum wage, which pays per eight-hour day roughly what MLAs are eligible to  claim for a day’s eating. You could subsidize daycare for three school-age kids  for a year on the public money Chong spent in restaurants in 2009.
What mental health and  addiction programs lost funding while Chong and our other MLAs dined out? How many long-standing community services closed their doors so our provincial politicians wouldn’t have to feel the pinch in their own work lives? 
Chong is simply the  latest politician to have caught the media’s fleeting eye. She isn’t the first  and won’t be the last who has taken what was on offer as a right. 
But she certainly owes  more of an explanation to her constituents than just her comments this week  defending her level of spending due to “no meals or things like that provided for” in much  of the work she does for government. 
Out here in the real  world, there aren’t many meals provided, either. We mostly have to pay our own way. I  doubt many of us spend anything like $61 a day on restaurant food, probably  because spending money like that becomes a lot less appealing when it comes out  of your own wallet. 
Why did Chong choose  to spend so much when she knew full well that so many services her government funded  were being sacrificed? I hope she’s reflecting on that right now.  But I also wonder why the premier didn’t just put expense rules like that on hold in the first place, when it became  clear that B.C. needed to buckle down. 
Not every politician  dined out to excess, of course. Saanich-Gulf Islands MLA Murray Coell, spent a  comparatively modest $1,321 on restaurant meals last year. And it goes without saying  that being a politician is hard work, requiring frequent travel and quite a  lot of restaurant dining. 
But if Gordon Campbell  is the leader of B.C., then surely he knows that leading by example is a  cardinal rule. Yet what kind of example is it when government pays its cabinet  ministers $152,000 - more than double the median household income in B.C. - and  they still rack up another $6,000 on restaurant meals?
(Interesting fact:  Chong’s salary and food expenses combined would cover 52 rent supplements of $250 for a  whole year. It would keep 22 people on income assistance.)
I do know enough about  budgets to recognize that Ida Chong eating out less often wouldn’t necessarily  translate into more money for public services. Every pocket of funding has its own  line on the budget. Money doesn’t readily flow even within programs, let  alone between different ministries or from the political level to the squeezed community services below. 
But Campbell’s  government could change that tomorrow if they wanted to. MLAs could be told to make a real  effort to reduce expenses, and savings could be channelled directly into  struggling services.  Wouldn’t that be a good-news story?
Instead we’re reading  about Chong’s eating habits and feeling betrayed again. It’s like catching your  parents gulping down steak and lobster in the shed while the kids huddle in the  kitchen eating gruel.
 Come   on, you guys. B.C. is hurting, and it’s a real drag to find out that our political leaders aren’t sharing the  pain. Pack a lunch. 

 
 
2 comments:
Approximately 11 days of her food budget would cover my disability pension for an entire month. Empathy? They don't know the meaning of the word.
Shameless pigs.
P.S.
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful columns. I always enjoy reading them.
Post a Comment