Sunday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to end your weekend.

- Jeffrey Sachs muses that the Occupy movement may just be the beginning of a sea change in American politics:

Both parties have joined in crippling the government in response to the demands of their wealthy campaign contributors, who above all else insist on keeping low tax rates on capital gains, top incomes, estates and corporate profits. Corporate taxes as a share of national income are at the lowest levels in recent history. Rich households take home the greatest share of income since the Great Depression. Twice before in American history, powerful corporate interests dominated Washington and brought America to a state of unacceptable inequality, instability and corruption. Both times a social and political movement arose to restore democracy and shared prosperity.

The first age of inequality was the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century, an era quite like today, when both political parties served the interests of the corporate robber barons. The progressive movement arose after the financial crisis of 1893. In the following decades Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson came to power, and the movement pushed through a remarkable era of reform: trust busting, federal income taxation, fair labor standards, the direct election of senators and women’s suffrage.

The second gilded age was the Roaring Twenties. The pro-business administrations of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover once again opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess, this time culminating in the Great Depression. And once again the pendulum swung. F.D.R.’s New Deal marked the start of several decades of reduced income inequality, strong trade unions, steep top tax rates and strict financial regulation. After 1981, Reagan began to dismantle each of these core features of the New Deal.

Following our recent financial calamity, a third progressive era is likely to be in the making. This one should aim for three things. The first is a revival of crucial public services, especially education, training, public investment and environmental protection. The second is the end of a climate of impunity that encouraged nearly every Wall Street firm to commit financial fraud. The third is to re-establish the supremacy of people votes over dollar votes in Washington.

- It doesn't seem to have registered at all among political commentators. But the Cons' plans to unilaterally reallocate federal health dollars toward Alberta at the expense of other provinces look to make for a significant change for the worse in ensuring that services are available and comparable across Canada:

Under the 2004 accord negotiated by then-prime minister Paul Martin, the provinces were guaranteed that the federal contribution to medicare - known as the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) - would rise annually by six per cent for a decade. This year, the provinces will receive $27 billion through the CHT.

Although the deal bought a measure of political peace with the provinces, not all were entirely pleased.

The agreement, which was agreed to by the former Klein government, pays Alberta approximately $558 per capita (nearly $2 billion in total) compared to a minimum $805 per person for every other province...

Alberta has been calling for equal treatment with the other provinces, and it appears that message has been received in Ottawa.

"The government of Canada is committed to moving to an equal per capital allocation of the CHT as of 2014-15," say the internal documents prepared for Penashue.

And at the same time, the Cons are denying any willingness to take into account either fiscal capacity or actual health care costs in doling out federal money. Which means that while Alberta stands to gain, there will be less money available to fund other provinces - and it's well worth keeping an eye on who ends up losing out.

- But don't bother complaining on Stephen Harper's public Facebook page, as you can count on any dissent being promptly disappeared.

- And finally, Thomas Walkom points out that the Ontario's Liberals haven't done anything to reverse the trend of privatized and less-efficient power generation; instead, their main contribution has been to make the entire process far less transparent to the citizens who will end up footing the bill.