On reality barriers

Shorter Brian Crowley:

It turns out that finding "facts" and "evidence" about mythical trade barriers is tougher than I'd realized. In light of this adversity, can't we just agree to accept my unsupported assertions as fact, and impose the most extreme anti-government policy my corporate benefactors can imagine in response?

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Kady points out that the Cons are back to their old tricks in trying to push as much committee work as possible behind closed doors.

- Susan Delacourt theorizes that the Cons are likely to use anger rather than fear as their basis for imposing cuts. I suspect the rhetoric will vary from issue to issue (and indeed the OAS message has been based squarely on the latter, echoing the Republican Social Security line that it's necessary to attack social programs in order to save them) - but it won't come as much surprise if the Cons' usual fabricated enemies are indeed on the receiving end of the worst of the slashing.

- The Ottawa Citizen recognizes that OAS is the wrong place to cut, while Andrew Jackson notes that Canadians in lower income groups aren't enjoying the lengthy retirements being cited by some as justification for raising the OAS eligibility age. Which means that when Brian Lee Crowley says "we" should all put off retirement, he doesn't have any interest in sharing the burden evenly with mere working stiffs. And indeed Crowley's entire column is an absolute howler to the effect that OAS somehow forces people to retire before they really want to.

- But if the Cons are confirming their desire to rob from the poor to give to the rich, then a few sources to highlight the gap such as economicinequality.ca should be an important addition to Canada's public debate.

- Finally, Christin Milloy points out an appalling regulation introduced by the Cons which would theoretically ban transgendered individuals from flying in Canada. Thankfully it doesn't seem to have been applied yet in practice - but if the best one can say for the Harper Cons is that nobody takes their bigoted and ill-advised decrees seriously, that's hardly a vote of confidence.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- As part of her look at what lies ahead for the NDP, Barbara Yaffe recognizes why it figures to make for a tougher opponent than the Libs have over the past few years:

How will Conservatives react to Layton leading the main opposition party in Parliament?

It remains to be seen whether they will mount an advertising campaign against him as they did against Liberal leaders Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.

Conservatives may have met their match, though. After all, Layton has led his party since 2003 and may be too much of a known quantity to be successfully attacked by government backroomers.

- All those who predicted that Newfoundland and Labrador would be the first province to see any effort to call Stephen Harper's Senate bluff (even if based only in the province's opposition parties), please collect your winnings.

- While plenty of people have pointed to Stephane Dion's paper for the MacDonald-Laurier Institute, I'm not sure anybody else has noticed what looks like a major part of the story.

Namely, when did Stephane Dion start writing for a Con-promoted and funded special interest group which mostly serves as a front for Con spin? And if the likes of Dion are lending their names and opinions to the greater glory of the Cons' cronies, what does that say about the Libs' hopes of building any competing institutions?

- Finally, Benjamin Wallace-Wells' feature on Paul Krugman includes this noteworthy tidbit on how economic gains have been divided in the U.S.:

From 1979 to 2004, the income of the richest one percent of Americans grew by 176 percent, that of the richest one fifth of the country by 69 percent, and that of everyone else by less than 25 percent. Working through the numbers, Krugman came to believe that “only a fraction” of the change was compelled by global forces, which had been the standard explanation. The rest, he concluded, was political.

It was Krugman’s Princeton colleague Larry Bartels who made the critical connection, in research Krugman devoured and still cites. Perhaps the most important influence on income inequality, Bartels argued, was something economists had not ­emphasized: whether a Democrat or a Republican was in the White House. Since World War II, Bartels found, wealthy families in the 95th percentile in income had seen identical income growth under both parties. But for families in the 20th percentile, the difference was astonishing: Under Democratic presidents, their income grew at six times the rate it did under Republican ones. There was, for Krugman, a kind of radicalization implied in this.

And I'd have to wonder whether the observations can be applied elsewhere: is there reason to doubt that the wealthy will tend to see relatively consistent gains in income, while the main distinction between different governments and societies is whether anybody else also benefits? And if so, wouldn't that seem like a rather compelling reason to focus all the more on redistribution rather than hoping that policies which obvious favour the wealthy on their face will somehow have trickle-down effects?

What really counts

Shorter Brian Lee Crowley:

The fact that Statistics Canada has taken the time to listen to our suggestions to supplement its crime analysis proves that they're wrong, while our willingness to stick to fearmongering long after it's been debunked proves that we're right. Ignorance is strength!

On corporate privilege

Needless to say, Susan Delacourt's series on the consumerization of politics is well worth a read. But there are a few points discussed only in passing by Delacourt which deserve plenty more analysis.

While I'll deal with most of them later, it's worth pointing out this observation by Brian Lee Crowley (who's hardly someone I'd normally agree with), while noting that it may offer the seeds of a counter to the Cons' "Tim Hortons" branding:

Crowley says that politics, north and south of the border, actually can be seen on a simple axis—privilege versus opportunity. The first U.S. Tea Party, the revolt against tea taxation, was against privilege as much as it was against taxes. In that way, the anti-elitist symbolism of Tim Hortons follows that theme—it speaks to Canadians' mistrust of people speaking down to them. Tim Hortons is all about skepticism toward privilege, embrace of opportunity. But opportunity to do what?

Now, it's probably true enough that to the extent the Cons have managed to establish a relatively high floor for support since they first took power, that's been based in large part on their ability to portray themselves as speaking for "ordinary Canadians" even while governing in ways that obviously serve other masters. But it's not too late to turn the Cons' tight ties to Tim's into a negative by highlighting the contradiction.

After all, there are different kinds of privilege which can raise public concerns. And it's not hard to see that for all the Cons' efforts to paint Tim's as being all about the customers, there are others who actually benefit directly from their constant stream of advertising.

Take for example Tim Horton's Inc. CEO Don Schroeder, with his total 2009 compensation of $2,788,628 (and over $2 million in outstanding stock options). Or its chairman Paul House, with total 2009 compensation of $1,542,796 (and nearly $3.5 million in outstanding stock options). Or better yet, its Chief Brand and Marketing Officer William Moir, who was paid $1,572,816 to go with over $3 million in stock options for his work in convincing Canadians that Tim's isn't about big-money elitism.

In effect, Tim's can serve as a prime example of how "common-man" branding can be harnessed for the gain of a few people who live at a privileged standard that most Canadians can barely imagine. And pointing out that gap may be the countermessage that best highlights the Cons' own dishonesty in pretending to speak for the little guy even while consistently using the levers of power to toss goodies to their well-connected friends.

At public expense

It's no great surprise that there's more to Jim Flaherty's use of public resources to direct money toward a right-wing think tank than meets the eye. But Joe Kuchta has uncovered a few details that I wouldn't have seen coming.

In particular, there's the fact that Crowley was getting paid out of federal coffers at exactly the time when he was founding the propaganda machine which Flaherty is now pushing:

On November 7, 2006, Rob Wright, Deputy Minister of Finance, announced that Crowley had been appointed the 2006-2007 Clifford Clark Visiting Economist in the Department of Finance.

And in case there was any doubt that Crowley was in the position for the balance of 2007, Crowley's own current think tank proudly proclaims that he held the post until 2008:

Dated: 20/3/08

Halifax – Brian Lee Crowley, the founding president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), has returned to head the public policy think tank.

Crowley was seconded a year and a half ago to the country’s most prestigious economic policy advisory post in Ottawa: the Clifford Clark Visiting Economist in the federal Department of Finance.

Which makes it highly significant that he was working for the Cons' government at public expense at the time the Macdonald-Laurier Institute was officially founded:

Corporations Canada records show that the Macdonald-Laurier Institute was incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act - Part II on March 12, 2007. The directors at the time of incorporation or as indicated on the last annual summary as of March 31 of the year of filing were: Brian Lee Crowley, David McD. Mann, and Allan Gotlieb.

So to the extent Flaherty is now using his office to shill for the Institute, it wouldn't appear to be the first time public resources found their way into backing the group. Instead, Crowley set up the group while he was personally paid to work for the public.

Not surprisingly, Joe also digs up details about contracts directed toward another Crowley company, as well as donations from Crowley to the Cons. But it seems most damning that the the public isn't just paying for Flaherty to promote the Macdonald-Laurier Institute now, but apparently bore the cost of getting Crowley to set it up in the first place.

On institutional bias

Oddly enough, this story about Jim Flaherty's effort to use both his name and his office to promote a right-wing think tank seems to have gone largely unnoticed other than in Linda McQuaig's recent column. But while the news may have escaped much attention in the midst of the latest confidence showdown, it's worth pointing out now as another example of how public resources are being misused by a Con government which apparently believes that the public sector exists only to further its political ends:

Tomorrow night, the country's Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, will host a private dinner at the Albany Club in Toronto to raise support for a new, non-partisan, private sector think tank. Called the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and designed to be national in scope but based in Ottawa, it is the creation of Brian Lee Crowley, currently president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies in Halifax.

Mr. Flaherty is "giving it my personal backing," he says in a letter inviting well-heeled Bay Street types to the event "and I hope that you will consider doing the same."

Having spent several years in the capital, the minister says "I can speak with some authority when I say that driving change within Ottawa is not easy. There are powerful actors in Ottawa, within the civil service, Parliament, the media and in many non-governmental organizations, that actively resist progress. ... Although I have always felt very well supported by friends and colleagues, I have clearly felt the need for independent research, support and promotion of these ideals," which he enumerates as smaller government, lower taxes and greater personal responsibility.
...
The minister concludes his pitch to potential backers of the new think tank by saying: "I'd like to see him return with a strong, independent and well-financed organization behind him to help transform Ottawa for the better, regardless of who is in power. This important national initiative deserves to succeed. Please join me in ensuring that it does. My office will follow up with you."

Now, the first message worth taking away from Flaherty's statement is that the Cons are still pushing the paranoid style of politics when it comes to dealing with the civil service among other actors. And it can't escape notice that the sitting Finance Minister is trying to use the prestige associated with his office to whine about "powerful actors" who have the nerve to point out that public policy shouldn't be measured solely by how much wealth it transfers upward.

Needless to say, the inclusion of the civil service in the list looks all the more ridiculous in light of Flaherty's stated intention to put "his office" to use in twisting arms for Crowley, including by ensuring that the latest propaganda machine is "well-financed". And I'd have to wonder how that could make for anything but a glaring misuse of the public resources at Flaherty's disposal.

Which means that there's a definite need for followup as to just how much public time has been dedicated to Flaherty's private support for Crowley's group. And hopefully if the truth comes out, it'll go a long way toward ensuring removing Flaherty from any position where he's able to do anything similar in the future.

(Edit: fixed wording.)