Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Adam King discusses how governments and employers have memory-holed some of the most important lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic as to the need for paid sick leave to ensure workplaces don't exacerbate the spread of dangerous diseases. 

- Debbie Cenziper, Michael Sallah and Michael Korsh examine how the FDA put millions of people at risk by failing to regulate the use of tainted breathing machines. And Carey Gillam reports on new research showing how the use of glyphosate herbicide endangers pregnant women and their children even who merely live near fields which have been sprayed. 

- Joe Vipond discusses how an actual cap on carbon emissions would have massive spillover health benefits, while Arthur Neslen reports on a push to put climate policy in the hands of experts rather than politicians and their donors. But Peter Zimonjic reports that the Libs are instead watering down existing targets for the oil and gas sector (even setting aside their continued blithe ignorance of emissions at the consumer level). 

- Meanwhile, Carl Meyer points out the recognition by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and Greenpeace Canada that there's no effective plan to counteract fossil sector greenwashing. And Ani Dasgupta sets out the crucial myths which have been exploited by the oil and gas sector to excuse the continued expansion of an industry which is already the leading cause of an ongoing climate breakdown. 

- Robson Fletcher talks to Trevor Tombe about the distributional impact of the carbon tax currently on the books - with the inescapable conclusion being that the Cons are looking to hand free money to the rich rather than helping those who are less well off. And Tracy Smith-Carrier examines the myths used to perpetuate poverty and block wide-scale implementation of a basic income. 

- Finally, David Climenhaga rightly notes that the Alberta NDP should have far more important things to do than to pursue a name change. (Though I'd raise an additional point on the futility of rebranding: to the extent the UCP's mantra of a "Trudeau-Notley-Singh alliance" carries an ounce of weight, the inclusion of the Trudeau Libs signals that nothing about a different party name or structure will change the messaging one iota.)

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Matthew Cunningham-Cook and Andrew Perez highlight how Suncor and other dirty energy giants have poured loads of windfall profits into stock buybacks while simultaneously repudiating their environmental promises and obligations.

- Jonathan Barrett discusses how Australia has seen the same spate of "shrinkflation" that's similarly resulted in the corporate sector goosing its profits at consumer expense elsewhere. And Paul Krugman points out how a focus on current measures of core inflation results in a misleading picture of household expenses.

- Meanwhile, Michelle Cyca discusses how Canadian public policy has gone astray due to the impossible promise that homeownership can paper over growing structural inequality. 

- Finally, Luke LeBrun reports on the bigoted right's attempts to take over Canada's schools and public spaces. And Jeremy Appel discusses how the Alberta NDP unfortunately kept that mindset in power by seeking to placate a right-wing view assumed to be shared by persuadable voters while offering only to be less hateful and corrupt in implementing it.

Sunday Evening Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- David Cox talks to Akiko Iwasaki about the reality that we're still far from being done with major harm from COVID-19. Keith Muziguchi discusses the stories of some of the people living with long COVID and finding few receptive listeners for either their experiences or their warnings. And Dylan Lubao points out the connection between the removal of mask mandates in health care facilities, and another fully-preventable COVID surge. 

- Ian Austen discusses the choices facing voters in Alberta's election - though the apparent belief of people who recognize the dangers of the UCP that they can accomplish as much by destroying a ballot as by voting for a viable alternative bodes poorly for the province's prospects. 

- Meanwhile, Jim Stanford highlights how the UCP's corporate tax giveaway (which Danielle Smith is pushing to lock in) was utterly counterproductive, gutting public revenues while showing no evidence of encouraging investment or economic development. And Nojoud Al Mallees reports on new data from Statistics Canada which suggests that any business complaints about a labour shortage are both overblown, and based primarily on their own refusal to provide decent work. 

- Tom Sanzillo writes about a new study showing how what little major oil companies are doing to claim to reduce emissions often involves selling high-emitting assets to others to continue operations.. 

- Finally, John Cartwright and Bianca Mugyenyi make the case for investing our public resources in butter rather than guns - particularly as the greatest threats we face involve social and environmental needs rather than plausible military confrontations. 

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Emmett Macfarlane discusses how the stakes in Alberta's election are no less than democracy and the rule of law - as Danielle Smith has made her contempt for both abundantly clear. But Andrew Nikiforuk points out that nothing in the current campaign holds any prospect of loosening the hold of petropolitics on the province.  

- Jennifer Lee reports on an open letter from 200 emergency room physicians pleading for recognition that hospitals are collapsing for lack of resources, while Taylor Lambert discusses Red Deer's overloaded facilities and exhausted providers as being emblematic of the province's health care system as a whole. And Annie Waldman's report on privatized vascular services in the U.S. offers a reminder of what happens when politicians choose treat the medical system primarily as a source of profit rather than a means of caring for people. 

- Nina Lakhani reports on new research from Corporate Accountability showing that most of the carbon offset credits claimed by Chevron as its excuse to keep pollution are worthless (if not actively destructive). And Patrick Greenfield reports on the resignation of the CEO of the world's largest provider of carbon credits Verra as its business model was shown to be a sham. 

- Finally, Emily Peck writes about the belated recognition by the economic powers that be that inflation rooted in price gouging is the main reason people are struggling with affordability - no matter how antithetical the very concept is to free-market idolatry. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Alec Connon discusses how anger is an entirely appropriate response to the capitalist imperative to impose constant costs and burdens on people and the planet. And Alexandra Digby, Dollie Davis and Robson Hiroshi Hatsukami Morgan write that the collapse of First Republic Bank and other financial institutions can be traced directly to an incentive structure which rewards reckless risk-taking rather than responsible management and long-term planning. 

- Alex Lawson reports on yet another quarter of obscene windfall profits for BP, while Reuters reports on similar results for ExxonMobil and Chevron. And Geoff Dembicki exposes an Alberta group - known for shilling for the oil industry with false accusations against pipeline activists - is itself funded with hundreds of thousands of dollars of secret contributions from CNRL. 

- Lisa Young writes about the choice facing Alberta voters in the election campaign which began this week - with the oil-funded good ol' boy network being challenged in its assertion of perpetual dominance by a coalition seeking to at least expand the range of voices involved in shaping the province's future.  

- Finally, Cory Doctorow writes about the bondage fees used to keep workers from pursuing anything better than exploitative current jobs. And Bob Egelko reports on a court's determination that a single Marriott hotel stole over $9 million in tips from its banquet workers - with the typical consequence being nothing more than a belated requirement to pay it back. 

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Nazeem Muhajarine discusses the importance of a response to the coronavirus which recognizes how a virus can change course and pose new threats. But Scott Schmidt notes that Alberta - like Saskatchewan and Ontario - is insistent on staying the course even when it obviously leads to disaster. And Brooks Fallis warns that the public is sleepwalking into a dangerous third wave.

- Don Martin writes about the abject failure of most Canadian provinces to use rapid tests to help in the fight against COVID-19. And Jerry Dias weighs in on the need for paid sick days as part of the plan to reduce community spread.

- Moira Welsh reports that for all the outcry about the mistreatment of residents in long-term care homes, nothing has changed for the better since last year in Ontario. Erick Espinosa and Michael Talbot expose how one for-profit operator has gone so far as to turn its retirement home into a prison, removing interior door handles to trap residents in their rooms. And PressProgress rightly asks why workers and unions were left out of British Columbia's review of COVID-19 and long-term care, while also revealing that Ontario workers are being pushed back to work under the province's workers' compensation system while still experiencing symptoms.

- Aaron Wherry writes that Canada's political system is better off for at least having enough party discipline to prevent the most extreme and anti-democratic forces from systematically gaining power. And Paul Krugman notes that the U.S.' Democrats are finally responding in kind to the Republicans' determination to use every lever at their disposal to shape policy outcomes. 

- Finally, Taylor Lambert muses as to whether the Notley NDP did enough with the opportunity created by a majority government.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Thomson Reuters reports on the latest UN research showing that planned fossil fuel production far exceeds what we can afford if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. And the Canadian Press reports on a study by the Institute for Climate Choices documenting Canada's failure to prepare for the harmful effects of a climate breakdown. 

- Bruce Campbell discusses how corporate obstructionism has contributed to the gap between what we need to do and what's currently on offer. And Evan Dyer reports on the back-door agreement struck by the Libs with the Trump administration to evade an international treaty on plastic waste.

- And in case there was any doubt what we stand to gain by pushing back against the self-serving statements of corporate actors, Binnu Jeyakumar highlights how contrary to the spin of fossil fuel lobbyists, Alberta is set to reach the goal of a coal-free electrical grid years ahead of schedule and at a cost savings to the public.

- Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman offer a reminder of the need for a wealth tax as the most effective way to reduce the dangerous concentration of money and power. And Brett Wilkins points out the US.' strong public support for taxes targeted at the 1%.

- Finally, Louise Champoux-Paillé, Anne-Marie Croteau and Steven Appelbaum discuss the need for more women leaders - as borne out by the pattern of effective responses to COVID-19. And Scott Payne writes about Alberta's choice between responsible government, and the exact opposite under the UCP.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Fred Hahn writes about the importance of government investment in times of crisis to make up for what people can't afford - or are understandably scared - to spend. Erica Natividad reports on the millions of Canadians who have no fallback plan if federal relief funding doesn't get renewed - though it's of course worth remembering that many in need either weren't included in the first place, or saw any benefits clawed back by self-serving provincial governments. Trevin Stratten and Robert Asselin note that we should want to be strategic in deciding how to use the resources we have available to tide people over and to set ourselves up for the future. And Brendan Kennedy reports on an appeal by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to see Ontario's basic income project revived by the federal government.

- Meanwhile, Ryan Malosh discusses the updated (if seemingly obvious) research showing that we can't treat specific lengths of time or distances as a magic bullet in limiting the spread of COVID-19. Justine Coleman reports on Anthony Fauci's recognition that the U.S. is likely over a year away from anything resembling the previous normal. And the Alberta NDP has offered its proposals to try to avert a similar uncontrolled outbreak - though there's reason for concern that all of the prairie provinces may be past the point of avoiding a catastrophic fall wave.

- CBC News reports on the lack of any realistic prospect of another oil drilling boom - no matter how much we subsidize fossil fuels either by building pipelines or undermining environmental protections. And Carl Meyer discusses the contrast between a Lib government punting on effective methane rules, and the people pushing for immediate action to limit the greenhouse gas with the most immediate effect on our climate.

- Finally, Kelly Crowe is rightly dubious of the CBC's plan to put a price on its reputation through a sponsored content division.

New column day

Here, wondering whether Alberta's lamentable election of Jason Kenney and his gang of regressive Conservatives might have been avoided if Rachel Notley's NDP had made an effort not to perpetuate the province's petro-politics.

For further reading...
- The Alberta NDP's 2015 platform is here (PDF), and doesn't so much as hint at the cheerleading for pipelines that eventually became one of Notley's main themes even as it strengthened the UCP's economic message.
- Carl Meyer reports on the massive carbon pollution being spewed out by the oil sands - including more than either of the provinces now under attack by Kenney and company. And Sharon Riley discusses what the UCP's election means for Alberta's long list of glaring environmental issues.
- Finally, while David Staples seems to have substantially the opposite take from my column, I'd argue that he helps to prove the point that absolutely no amount of self-flagellation and subservience to the oil industry was ever going to be enough for her right-wing critics - meaning that the lost chance to develop a provincial self-image as more than a petro-state looms all the larger.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Ed Finn writes that the Trudeau PMO's interference on behalf of SNC-Lavalin confirms Canada's plutocratic rule under Libs and Cons alike. And Carole Cadwalladr and Duncan Campbell report on Facebook's use of promised jobs to bribe its way out of the regulations which are supposed to protect citizens from corporate abuse.

- The Star's editorial board implores the Libs not to settle for a watered-down version of national pharmacare out of subservience to big pharma.

- The Edmonton Journal highlights the progress Alberta has made in reducing child poverty by half since the NDP first formed government.

- Meanwhile, Alex Soloducha reports on Saskatchewan's grossly inadequate social supports which make it impossible for people living in poverty to find housing. And Derek Cornet points out the continued scourge of hunger in the province.

- Gregory Beatty offers a reminder of the culture lost as a result of the Saskatchewan Party's elimination of the film industry - particularly as Netflix invests across Canada other than in Saskatchewan.

- Finally, Lana Payne discusses the Scheer Conservatives' choice to embrace racism out of political convenience.

Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your year-end reading.

- Kenan Malik comments on the many forms of classism. And Roderick Benns examines how Ontario's basic income recipients were able to make use of their increased income security - including by spending more time with friends, with family and volunteering in their communities.

- Susan writes about the distinction between an Alberta NDP government which treats people with dignity and respect, and Jason Kenney's UCP which goes out of its way to try to strip anything of the sort from minority group members.

- David Leonhardt discusses the fundamental importance of climate change compared to every other area of public policy debate.

- Finally, Sonia Sodha writes that rather than accepting the food industry's spin on health regulations as reflecting an excessive nanny state, we should be concerned about the unhealthy diet we're pushed to eat by corporate giants:

“What about our free will?” the anti-nanny-staters will cry at the idea of forcing manufacturers to act. But we don’t see people with placards in the street protesting against the thwarting of our right to eat a slice of bread with as much salt as a packet of crisps. The beauty of food reformulation is that because it happens gradually, our palates adjust and we simply don’t notice that certain foods are 30% less salty than a decade ago.

The free-will question needs turning on its head. The dirty secret at the heart of the food industry is that the deliciously unhealthy stuff – fat, sugar, salt – is also cheap. Cram foods full of them and it’s not only consumers who love them, but shareholders. And this, together with changing eating habits, including the popularity of ready meals and eating out, has driven up the unhealthiness of our food over time. As the food that lines supermarket shelves gets fattier, saltier and more sugary, our palates are reconditioned to crave more of it. There’s no free choice about the industry reshaping our tastes to benefit its profit margins without us even realising.

That’s why it’s not just the usual suspects who are arguing for a compulsory approach, but some industry voices as well, including the British Retail Consortium. They know that unless all food manufacturers are forced to play by the rules, progress will be limited as even responsible manufacturers are held back by first-mover disadvantage.

That won’t stop the libertarians crying foul. Perhaps what motivates some of them is a belief that this is all about individual willpower, a disdain for people just too greedy to leave some of their dinner on their plate. But it’s not Christmas levels of gluttony primarily driving our obesity crisis. An irresponsible food industry has got a lot of lives to answer for.

On necessary measures

I've previously linked to columns by Paul Wells and Jen Gerson on the coordinated right-wing attack on carbon pricing. (And even the Notley government has made a show of withdrawing from a coordinated federal climate change plan, though without abandoning its own climate change policy.)

But let's not assume that what's being treated as a convenient political argument for now won't produce some blowback. To the contrary, the unilateral withdrawal of provinces from any federal system might ultimately favour the development of stronger federal climate regulation.

From a legal standpoint, one of the primary arguments around the federal government's power to price carbon (among other climate change measures) surrounds the question of whether fighting climate change can be categorized as a "national concern" which cannot effectively be dealt with by the provinces acting independently. On that front, see e.g. Manitoba's legal opinion (PDF) on a "backstop" strategy - particularly to the extent it relied on the assumed fact that a province planned to adopt equally effective measures which failed to receive federal recognition.

Saskatchewan's sad excuse for a plan is the most obvious example of a province falling woefully short of that presumption. But in assessing the necessity of federal action, there might have been some argument available that a single province continuing to stumble in the wrong direction wouldn't have an important enough effect to preclude the achievement of national goals.

With Ontario now on the climate denial side - ceding any claim to basing policy on evidence in favour of anti-tax bombast - there's now no question that the current set of provincial defectors is of a sufficient size to undermine any national action. And every province which adds its name to the list of objectors (and trashes its own climate change measures in the process) will only strengthen that position, making it more likely that courts will recognize a need for federal action in response to a provincial-level vacuum. 

What's more, that point may prove important in political as well as legal terms. In time, enough provincial recalcitrance might lead to a push for a federal plan which serves as a national governing system rather than a mere "backstop".

To be clear, such a system wouldn't necessarily need to represent a less cooperative form of federalism in the sense of failing to account for the position of provinces willing to act in good faith; instead, it could incorporate provincial preferences through a federally-applied system. And it's not out of the question that the provincial governments who retain a strong interest in fighting climate change could decide the best path toward that end involves a national system - which as a bonus could result in public pressure being directed toward the federal level.

Of course, it would be preferable to see provinces take climate change seriously on their own, particularly given the seeming preference of a Lib majority government to treat the issue (like most) as one of symbolism rather than substance.

But the more conservative premiers refuse to exercise their power responsibly when it comes to the planetary threat of climate change, the more likely it is that the federal government will see a need to increase its own level of responsibility. And the end result could be a national system that's both more consistent, and even more likely to survive whatever evidence-free arguments might be made against it in court.

On public interests

Plenty of others have pointed out the most direct lie in Jason Kenney's attempt to blame Alberta's NDP for the decisions of an Ontario court dealing with Carillion's Canadian bankruptcy. But it's worth taking a look at the much more fundamental lie at the core of Kenney's complaint.

As mentioned in the very article linked to by Kenney, the privatization of Alberta's highway maintenance operations took place under his Conservative predecessors.

It was the PCs who put a high-risk foreign operator in charge of maintaining a wide swath of the province's highways in the first place (PDF) due to their distaste for public services. And they further put the public at Carillion's mercy (PDF) just in time for the corporate house of cards to come toppling down. 

In response, Alberta's NDP has been criticizing (PDF) the PC's determination to push public-sector austerity as an excuse for privatization, and calling for decisions about infrastructure to be made by and in the interests of citizens.

Needless to say, that fault line remains between the two parties. The NDP continues to want public services to function under public control for the benefit of citizens and local businesses alike. And Kenney continues to be determined to undermine public services by selling them off or exposing them to corporate competition or control at every turn.

Of course, neither Kenney nor his corporate backers are about to let the facts get in the way of an attack on Rachel Notley. But voters in Alberta (and elsewhere) should note that there's only way to avoid having the public interest turned into an afterthought in business proceedings - and that's to make sure Kenney and his ilk don't get to lock governments into privatization scams.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Bloomberg View discusses how the U.S. is becoming a major tax haven. And the Economist reminds us of the role Canada's pitiful corporate disclosure requirements play in facilitating offshore tax evasion.

- Danny Vinik writes about the future of work - which includes plenty more "alternative" work arrangements designed to insulate businesses from both any responsibility for the well-being of workers, and any means of being held to account for their actions. And Stuart Trew notes that we should be eager to see and encourage genuine disruption of the trend toward precarious work and living.

- Ian Hussey examines the effect of Alberta's minimum wage increases, and finds that the service industries which have shrieked the loudest about paying fair wages have actually benefited the most from improved consumer spending power. Michael Coren discusses why Tim Hortons and other businesses trying to take benefits away from workers aren't deserving of sympathy, while the Star's editorial board points out how the move conflicts with supposed corporate values. 

- Andrew Coyne argues for a basic income as an alternative to an increased minimum wage, though there's no particular reason why the two can't coexist as means of raising the floor for lower-income workers.

- Finally, Johann Hari writes about the social and economic factors behind depression - and the implicit need to develop social structures which don't push people toward avoidable stressors.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Brent Patterson rightly worries about the prospect that Justin Trudeau will choose to emulate Donald Trump's anti-social agenda (just as he's too often done with Stephen Harper's):

At the time of last year's federal budget, Finance Minister Bill Morneau commented he would exercise prudence "to ensure that we have the capacity to deal with the environment that we find ourselves in". That was widely interpreted in the media as the federal government recognizing that Trump's corporate tax cuts were on the way and that those cuts would have implications for Canada.

There will also very likely be corporate pressure to cut regulatory protections for Canadians. Wudrick says, "It's not as if Canada can count on other advantages to mitigate being competitive on taxes; regulatory uncertainty, for example, helped kill large projects such as Energy East."

John Manley, the former Liberal cabinet minister who now heads the Business Council of Canada, says, "Initiatives such as tax reform, changes to environmental policy and deregulation [in the United States] could have serious consequences for Canada's economy." His prescription? Cut corporate tax rates to stay competitive, streamline the regulatory approval process, negotiate free trade agreements with Japan, India and China, and adopt less restrictive climate policies.

We'll see what the Liberals do regarding corporate tax rates in the upcoming federal budget (expected in March), but it has already signalled its intention to streamline the regulatory approval process, is pursuing 'free trade' agreements (including the Trans-Pacific Partnership that could be signed by March of this year), while its so-called "restrictive climate policies" have allowed for the approval of the 890,000 barrel per day Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and the 760,000 barrel per day Enbridge Line 3 pipeline - that together would generate 39-52 megatonnes of upstream carbon pollution a year.

- Owen Jones discusses the knighting of Nick Clegg as a prime example of how utter failure is no obstacle to lionization within an elite political class.

- Andre Picard writes that Canada can learn from California's experience in managing the legalization of marijuana. But of course that would involve some level of governmental interest and competence - both of which are sorely lacking within Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party administration.

- Meanwhile, Jeremy Barreto comments on Rachel Notley's success in developing affordable renewable power for Alberta.

- Finally, David Moscrop makes the case for an offer of guaranteed seats in the House of Commons for Indigenous representatives.

Saturday Evening Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Brian Bethune interviews Joseph Stiglitz about his longstanding recognition that an international economic system biased toward capital could lay the groundwork for Trump-style demagoguery.

- Kristin Annable reports on the Manitoba PCs' steps toward for-profit health care as an alternative to properly funding and managing the public system. But Keith Gerein notes that the Alberta NDP is instead developing public-sector senior care alternatives where the private sector is falling short of meeting people's needs.

- David Hardman defends the concept of a basic income by noting that our sleep cycles are at best an awkward fit with even standard full-time work. David Rosen discusses the end of the true 40-hour work week due a combination of undercounting work time and the need for multiple incomes to stay afloat. And Colin Gordon notes that U.S. laws have been undercutting the labour movement's ability to defend workers' rights for the past 70 years. 

- Angela Wright points out that a serious effort to combat offshore tax evasion needs to deal with prominent developed countries which choose to act as tax havens.

- Finally, Brent Richter offers a good-news story as to how a single tax return gave one marginalized citizen a chance for a genuine fresh state - while noting that many people would benefit similarly from a concerted effort to prepare returns for people who aren't currently submitting them.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Tom Parkin writes that the Trudeau Libs and Bill Morneau have taken the side of wealthy shareholders over workers who want only the secure retirement they've already paid for through deferred wages:

Morneau should be requiring companies to tell Canadians’ pension regulator about their dividend plans. He should be setting processes and rules that get healthy companies to fully fund pensions — before there’s another Sears-type pension fiasco.

Instead, Morneau is sponsoring Bill C-27. True, it does help eliminate pension liabilities — but not by funding them. Morneau’s bill would help employers permanently shift potential liabilities onto workers by replacing defined benefit plans with “target” plans.

On pensions, tax havens and private infrastructure finance, Bill Moreau has shown he’s a rich guy’s rich guy. That’s what he was as leader of a C.D. Howe Institute, which is little more than a CEO lobby group. That’s what he is as Finance Minister. He can’t be gone soon enough.

- And Alan Freeman echoes the view that Morneau can't be kept in a position which he's used mostly to enrich his own class of vulture capitalists.

- Meanwhile, Chris Varcoe reports on the Notley government's push to make sure that federal bankruptcy law doesn't leave the public on the hook for the costs of remediating abandoned oil wells.

- Alex Hemingway discusses the role tax fairness can play in reducing inequality - and how to make that work in British Columbia's next budget. And Dean Beeby reports on the Canada Revenue Agency's first steps toward cracking down on tax avoidance in the country's wealthiest neighbourhoods.

- Finally, Ed Finn writes that citizen happiness correlates far more strongly with genuinely democratic and responsive government than with raw GDP.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- David Climenhaga comments on the tendency of even progressive governments to unduly accept neoliberal frames and theories - with Rachel Notley's talk of "compassionate belt tightening" sadly serving as the latest example:

Premier Notley told reporters that her government spent money on infrastructure and services during the recession caused by the international collapse in oil prices, but now that the economy seems to be perking up at last, it's time to alter course.

This seems to make sense in a classic John Maynard Keynes, Economics 101, sort of way -- you know, spend in bad times, save in good. A couple of things are wrong with this explanation, however:

First, it's too soon. The recession isn't over. Spending is still needed to keep the economy off life support.

Second, and more important in the Alberta context, taxes here are artificially kept at nonsensically low levels -- too low to run a modern economy in a jurisdiction of this size and complexity -- because we refuse to tax individuals and corporations at a level that makes sense.

Everybody understands this. Certainly Notley does, as does her caucus. NDP supporters do too.
...
If ever there was a discredited economic doctrine, it's the harsh austerity, privatization, deregulation, government spending cuts, and lowest-common-denominator trade policies of the neoliberal counter-revolution that has sought to destroy the post-World War II welfare state, which resulted in the highest levels of prosperity in human history, and turn the clock back to the 19th Century.

And yet here we go again -- led by an NDP government no less -- down the rabbit hole of neoliberal prescriptions, which never work, always make things worse, and sow chaos and destruction for ordinary people while undermining democracy by making the uber-wealthy richer and more powerful.

It's a tribute to the success of the international neoliberal propaganda machine, I suppose, that doing the sensible thing and implementing modest increases to Alberta's taxes is simply not on, even for a well-intentioned social democratic government.
...
Alas, the modest common-sense tax increases Alberta needed from the NDP never came. Instead, the best we can hope for now is compassionate austerity, which when it doesn't work, risks becoming the conservative entrée to something harsher, and even less effective.

- And the Equality Trust offers its response to yet another UK budget which inflicts austerity rather than ameliorating inequality.

- Noah Smith writes about the crucial role of social redistribution in ensuring the prosperity is shared beyond the luckiest few. And Judy Paul writes that a basic income could go much further in allowing people to make positive life choices like finishing high school as adults, rather than being trapped by the need to scratch out subsistence-level incomes.

- Finally, Steven Greenhouse discusses the need for better scheduling protections for U.S. workers - and the developing movement to fight for them.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- The Star's editorial board offers a needed response to the Fraser Institute's tired anti-social posturing:

The study’s greatest failing, however – the omission that ultimately renders its statistics meaningless – is that it makes no mention whatsoever of what we get in return for our tax money. Nowhere does the report mention “public services” or “programs,” nowhere “roads” or “schools.” It’s true that taxes as a percentage of our income have risen over the last 56 years, by around 7 per cent, but consider what they have bought: medicare, for instance, and the Canada Pension Plan, to name just two programs established after their baseline year of 1961.

Not only are these and other aspects of our social safety net arguably central to our national identity – the civilization, you might say, for which taxes have been the price. But they have also yielded exceptional value for money.
...
By delinking taxes from the services they buy, the Fraser Institute has long fed into a false narrative that for decades was in the ascendancy: that any tax is a bad tax and any cut a free good. In recent years, however, that view has begun to fall out of favour, and not just on the left. The IMF, the OECD, and other past champions of austerity have all made the case that the costs of tax cuts often outweigh their benefits and taxes and the collective action they pay for are essential if we are to meet our biggest challenges.

A few years ago it was almost unthinkable that a Canadian politician could run successfully on the promise of raising any taxes ever. But in the last federal election, both the New Democrats and the Liberals promised tax hikes for at least some Canadians that would have seemed political suicide in recent elections past.

The Fraser Institute’s annual anti-tax litany was always bogus. Now, thankfully, it’s starting to look out of touch.

- And Larry Elliott writes about a new study showing that there's both a significant need to collect more public revenue from the rich, and ample room to do so.

- Richard Florida highlights the connection between increasing inequality and rising rents, while Erica Alini reports on the trend of people who can't afford to own a home in larger cities speculating on the value of housing in smaller towns. Kevin Page and Tina Yuan discuss how the next federal budget could deliver a much-needed reduction in poverty and homelessness. And Alan Broadbent comments on the importance of getting the big things right when developing social supports, rather than letting people suffer while policy-making is oriented toward creating a large number of insufficient programs.

- Finally, Tom Parkin highlights how the Alberta NDP's choice to invest in people rather than slashing and burning to exacerbate a downturn has resulted in a far stronger economic position than the opposite strategy from the Sask Party.

New column day

Here, on how several other provinces are setting new (and necessary standards) for worker protections while Saskatchewan falls further behind.

For further reading...
- Ontario's Changing Workplaces Review is here (in full), and here (in summary form). CBC reports on Kathleen Wynne's subsequent minimum wage announcement, while Sheila Block crunches the numbers on how it will reduce inequality. And Thomas Walkom points out how even Ontario's plan falls short of the mark in protecting people stuck in precarious work and allowing for labour to organize.
- Alberta's summary of its planned Labour Relations Code amendments is here.
- The governance agreement between the B.C. NDP and Greens is here (PDF), featuring the terms on labour and employment issues at 2(d) and (e).
- Finally, in contrast to all those current plans, the last substantial review of Saskatchewan's general labour and employment law took place in 2012, and resulted in this largely anti-worker set of provisions.