Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Andrew Jackson writes that bland centrism is no response to right-wing populism:

Right-wing populism is a complex phenomenon which varies a lot by country. But most analysts agree that it is deeply rooted in material circumstances: rising economic inequality to often obscene levels, the stagnation of middle and lower class incomes both before and after the global economic crisis, increased low wage and precarious employment, rising economic insecurity and, in much of Europe, continued very high unemployment. Many working-class voters feel, with good reason, that the system is rigged against them, and that centrist politicians have done nothing to help them weather tough economic times.
...
(E)mbracing discredited liberal centrist politics is the worst possible way to fight right-wing populism. Far better, argue US political voices like Robert Kuttner, Robert Frank, Jacobin magazine and the newly invigorated Democratic Socialists of America, to combat right-wing populism not just by identifying the enemy in class terms, but to identify the enemy correctly as the top 0.1% of the billionaire class who have pocketed almost all of the gains of economic expansion and wield the levers of political power in their own interests. Far better to speak to the need to rebuild a mass labour movement, including both white and racialized workers who have far more in common than what divides them. Far better to put forward a strong social democratic agenda to increase security and rebuild equality through vital public programs like health care and education, paid for from fair tax reforms, and tough labour standards.
 
The same broad principles apply in Canada. The populist right, which is growing in influence, similarly feeds off the growth in inequality and insecurity and the lack of an attractive and compelling vision of our collective future. 
...

The best antidote to right-wing populism is not centrist liberal policies which make little difference in people's lives, but a bold and self-confident social democratic party which embraces the need to seriously deal with climate change, precarious jobs and rising inequality.

- David Sessions highlights how plutocrats try to set up other groups of "elites" for abuse in order to be allowed to plunder the populace without objection. Aaron Saad comments on the campaign by the oil industry and its political puppets to dehumanize anybody who dares to point out the need to transition away from fossil fuels. And Jim Bronskill reports that the RCMP is apparently delaying the release of a report into its spying on environmental protesters by refusing to provide a response.
  
- Frances Bula notes that the Libs' election-year housing announcements fall far short of both their promises, and the steps needed to make a meaningful dent in the shortage of affordable homes.

- Finally, Jenna Price writes that workplaces in Australia are falling far short of accounting for the needs of employees (and primarily women) trying to fit in both work and caregiving responsibilities.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Nick Hanauer discusses the futility of "educationism" which treats schools as the only factor in social outcomes without recognizing the importance of inequality and precarity in restricting opportunities for far too many children. And PressProgress points out that Brian Pallister's Manitoba PCs - in keeping with right-wing dogma - are determined to make matters worse for people already getting by with low incomes.

- Michael Spratt writes that Doug Ford's cuts to Legal Aid will end up costing more than they save (in addition to undermining outcomes in Ontario's justice system). Cory Coleman reports on the long-term damage being done by the Saskatchewan Party's failure to maintain the province's health facilities.

- David Climenhaga highlights how Canada's right has decided to pattern itself after Donald Trump in full, including by exhibiting an utter aversion to facts and proclivity for gaslighting. And PressProgress calls out Brad Wall (among other prominent Cons) for eagerly pushing climate denialism.

- Robert Reich argues that Elizabeth Warren's plan to revive the concept of industrial policy in the public interest offers a needed alternative to the corporatist view that the economy exists solely to serve the already-rich:

Smartness and openness go together. An open, explicit industrial policy becomes a national competitive strategy. A hidden industrial policy becomes a haven for political payoffs – a form of corporate welfare.

Which may be why big business in America killed off industrial policy in the 1980s. Such talk threatened to expose how much public money big business was raking in without doing anything in return.
...
Warren proposes enlarging federal research and development, and targeting it on leading technologies. These R&D investments would be “spread across every region of the country, not focused on only a few coastal cities”. The products that emerge would be built by American workers.

Her Green Manufacturing Plan proposes allocating $150bn annually for the next decade to renewable, green, American-made energy products, along with a dramatic expansion of worker training to ensure Americans have the skills for the anticipated new jobs.

It’s a national investment in our future. “Over the next decade, the expected market for clean energy technology in emerging economies alone is $23tn,” she explains.

It would also be good for the world. She calls for a Green Marshall plan, “dedicated to selling American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy technology abroad and a $100bn commitment to assisting countries to purchase and deploy this technology.”

As Trump erects tariff walls and rolls back federal efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Elizabeth Warren is promoting a positive economic nationalism designed both to advance America’s workers and respond to one of the most profound crises confronting the world.

- Finally, Jim Bronskill reports on a directive allowing Canada's military to collect and use information about Canadians with minimal controls or oversight.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Matt Bruenig discusses how UK Labour's plans to ensure workers have an ownership stake in major corporations fits into the wider principle of common wealth:

The Labour Party’s John McDonnell recently unveiled a policy that would require large corporations with more than 250 employees to gradually place 10 percent of their shares into Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs) owned by workers. Under the plan, workers in each firm would exercise the ownership rights of the IOF shares and annually receive up to £500 of their shares’ dividends.

Along with nationalizing certain utilities, giving workers representation on corporate boards, and reinvigorating the trade union movement, collectivizing the ownership of a portion of company stock through the IOF scheme is meant to be a step towards democratizing the ownership and control of the UK economy.
...
(T)he need to come up with practical socialist governing ideas seems to be what is motivating the recent renaissance of the idea in the last 6 years or so. The surprising success of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour Party has prompted policy organizations like IPPR to reinvigorate the idea so that it can be adopted ahead of the next UK election. In the US, a burgeoning socialist movement sparked by Bernie Sanders has pushed think tanks like People’s Policy Project to do the same thing.
...
Nonetheless, it is heartening to see the Labour Party pick up this long-standing socialist idea and run with it in earnest. The Inclusive Ownership Funds offer a promising strategy for gradually shifting ownership of the economy out of the hands of an oligarchic class and into the hands of Britain’s workers and its society as a whole. It is not a panacea to all that ails the British economy, but it does set it down the path towards a democratic socialist future.

- Bill Curry reports on the latest report of Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux indicating that while the federal government has money to spare, there's an urgent need for increased transfers to ensure provinces can meet their responsibilities. And the CCPA's Alternative Federal Budget offers a road map toward ending poverty and transitioning toward a sustainable economy in the relatively near future.

- Meanwhile, Katherine Scott points out the need for far more than sporadic awareness and action in pursuit of gender equity.

- Emilee Gilpin reports that the Libs' response to the Trans Mountain court decision about insufficient consultation and regulation has been to give interested parties a grand total of a week in which to register for a new hearing. And Jim Bronskill reports on the federal government's attempts to stifle any public knowledge of the steps taken to spy on environmental activists.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom writes that Canada should be walking away from NAFTA talks ather than keeping up the laughable pretense that the U.S. - particularly under Donald Trump - can be counted on to respect its continental commitments.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Mike Savage and John Hills write about the respective takes on the sources of inequality provided by Tony Atkinson, Thomas Piketty and Joseph Stiglitz. And Michael Spence discusses how economic development needs to be inclusive and based on trust in order to be sustainable:

First, as we concluded in our final report, non-inclusive growth patterns will always ultimately fail. Such patterns cannot produce the sustained high growth that is necessary for reducing poverty and fulfilling basic human aspirations for health, security, and the chance to contribute productively and creatively to society. They underutilize and misuse valuable human resources; and they often give rise to political or social turmoil, often marked by ideological or ethnic polarization, which then leads either to wide policy swings or to policy paralysis.

Our second broad conclusion was that sustained growth requires a coherent, adaptable strategy that is based on shared values and goals, trust, and some degree of consensus. Of course, achieving that is easier said than done.

Many developing countries have experienced extended periods of slow or no growth. In some cases, a country’s leaders are simply confused, and do not understand what needs to be done. In most cases, however, the ingredients of an effective “growth model” are well known, and the problem is a lack of political or social consensus about how to implement it.

Achieving a higher growth equilibrium is rarely a gradual or incremental transition. It requires a discontinuous leap in expectations and policies, and a fundamental shift in the political and social consensus. When these shifts occur, leadership plays a crucial role, by providing citizens with an alternative vision, based on common values, that all stakeholders can support. Such leadership can come from above, from below, or from a representative group. But as the persistence of low-growth equilibria in many countries shows, it often doesn’t come at all.

- Meanwhile, Owen Jones points out that UK Labour is taking much-needed steps to empower members and activists to push for meaningful social change.

- John Milloy laments the demonization of taxes as a barrier to the discussion of important policy choices - though it's questionable whether the public buys that rhetoric to the same extent as the political class. And Linda McQuaig comments on the problems with a tax system which is designed to further privilege people with the most wealth and connections.

- The CCPA and the PBO (PDF) have each offered new studies showing that Canada would save billions of dollars each year (while improving public health) with a national pharmacare program. And the Canadian Labour Congress calls for immediate action to implement a universal prescription drug plan.

- Finally, Jim Bronskill reports on Fred Vallance-Jones' audit of Canada's dysfunctional access to information system - which is only getting worse under the Libs.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Rachel Bunker writes that Equifax represents the worst of an out-of-control capitalist system, as a poorly-regulated and unreliable credit reporting operation is making profits for itself by reinforcing existing discrimination among other businesses.

- Naomi Klein discusses this summer's spate of wildfires and widespread smoke as showing how climate change is literally causing key parts of our planet to burn. 

- Mario Canseco argues that confusion as to the meaning of a child care program shouldn't serve as an obstacle to implementing a system which offers parents much-needed options in British Columbia.

- Jorge Barrera reports that even as the Libs have pleaded poverty in refusing to provide equal funding for on-reserve education and child welfare services, they've handed out nearly half a million dollars to a party-friendly consultant to reiterate the obvious. 

- Beatrice Britneff and Kyle Duggan report on Apotex' attempt to stifle an investigation into its lobbying of the Libs. And Murray Mandryk comments on the latest revelations of Sask Party wrongdoing from the Global Transportation Hub, while Sean Holman highlights how governments are still suppressing far too much information from Canadians. 

- Finally, Jim Bronskill reports on the Libs' absolute failure to fix the most important problems with Bill C-51.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Josh Bivens notes that U.S. corporations are already paying a lower share of taxes than has historically been the case - meaning that there's no air of reality to the claim that handing them more money will produce any positive economic results. And Noah Smith writes that public infrastructure spending would do far more than tax cuts to improve economic outcomes.

- Angella MacEwen discusses how NAFTA (like other trade agreements) has served largely to drive down labour and employment standards among all participants. And Michal Rozworski counters some of the corporatist myths being peddled in opposition to a fair minimum wage.

- Trevor Hancock reminds us of the outrageous levels of child poverty in Canada. Kings' College Investigative Workshop examines the woeful lack of mental health services in Nova Scotia.

- CBC reports on the Saskatchewan Environmental Society's push for the province to do its part in fighting climate change, while Abacus finds that Canadians in general recognize the need to transition away from fossil fuels. And Erin Weir points out that instead of inventing complaints about what the federal government might do, Brad Wall would be better served pointing out how the Libs are actively underfunding transit in Saskatchewan.

- Finally, Rebecca Joseph and Jim Bronskill report on the continued public demand to repeal Bill C-51 and rein in the unaccountable surveillance state. And Matthew Behrens discusses his experience as a target of an "anti-terrorist" investigation.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Carol Linnitt notes that British Columbia's provincial pipeline spill map has been conspicuously disappeared by the Clark Libs in the lead up to an election where environmental protection is a major issue. And Kathy Tomlinson is the latest to highlight both the glaring lack of reasonable fund-raising regulations in B.C., and the fact that corporations are still managing to break the law with impunity.

- Meanwhile, Emily Eaton and Simon Enoch examine how the oil industry is distorting education in Saskatchewan. 

- Bob Berwyn warns about the impending release of greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost. And Robin McKie writes that the loss of sea ice is threatening the entire Arctic ecosystem.

- Kate Lord discusses Canada's shameful history of systemic discrimination against indigenous children. Michael Enright writes that there's no excuse for the continued lack of clean water on many First Nations reserves, while Sarah Giles, Lindsay Hancock and Lisa Letkemann point out that allocated funding for health services isn't being spent due to an overly stingy travel policy which prevents needed treatment from being approved. And Paul Dewar suggests that instead of following through on the Cons' ideological anti-communism memorial, we direct our efforts toward building a National Aboriginal Centre.

- Alan Freeman notes that money launderers are effectively being welcomed to Canada and told they'll be shielded from public view. And Harvey Cashore, Kimberly Ivany, Frederic Zalac and Gillian Findlay expose a few of the bigger names linked to KPMG's offshore tax evasion, while noting that none of them figure to face any consequences for cheating the public.

- And finally, Jim Bronskill reports on CSIS' glaring failure to assess privacy risks before it approved the wholesale collection of metadata.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Alison Crawford reports on the Libs' failure to pass any new legislation to allow collective bargaining for RCMP members - leaving them with even less than the system which was already found to be unconstitutional. And Jake Johnson discusses the consequences of the U.S. corporate sector's war on unions:

In a climate of intense insecurity, cultivated by both the hostile corporate setting and the wider economic context of the United States in the 21st century, workers hesitate to speak out against their employers for fear of losing their jobs. "Lives depend on these wages," the report notes. "Usually, there are few other options in the area, and these options likely pay lower wages."

Outrage sparked by horrendous working conditions is thus overshadowed by intense shame and, ultimately, resignation. "Workers clearly get the message that they if they want to keep their job, they need to endure what happens inside the plant — or, in the words of many, 'allí está la puerta' ('there’s the door')."

This sense of helplessness is felt across many industries and is largely the result of a ruthless, decades-long effort by highly class-conscious elites to dismantle unions and undercut potential threats to the accumulation of profit.
...
(E)ven as profits soar, the most vulnerable workers remain stuck in an untenable scenario — horrified by their conditions but lacking an outlet through which they can voice their discontent.

There is a reason, then, that economic elites are waging unabashed class war: They understand that organized labor is a threat to corporate power. Unions are a redistributive force, one that endangers the ingrained paradigm of concentrated wealth.

- Meanwhile, Hugh MacKenzie calls out the financial sector's attempts to divert any discussion of pensions toward schemes to skim ever-increasing management fees off of Canadians' retirement savings. And Dwayne Winseck points out the inevitable effects of Bell's planned takeover of MTS as an example of corporate oligopoly at its worst.

- Jim Bronskill reports that the Libs seem inclined to pair any increase in the authority of the Information Commissioner with an unaccountable ministerial veto - which might actually make it even more difficult for Canadians to get access to the records which matter most.

- Finally, the Star calls for the Libs to reverse the Cons' gratuitously-punitive changes to the pardon system.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Tom Parkin points out that the Trudeau Liberals are falling far short of their promises to fund infrastructure even while tripling their planned deficit.

- Jared Bernstein highlights how top-down block grants coupled with a denial of any responsibility for outcomes can lead to the deterioration of social programs. And Konrad Yakabuski notes that exactly that model seems likely to continue pushing health care costs onto Canada's provinces.

- Alexsandra Sagan reports on the spread of precarious work models into white-collar professions and public services. And Rachel Aiello notes that the Cons suppressed a report ordered by their own minister in order to attack labour rights while hiding the anticipated consequences.

- Jim Bronskill is tracking down the effects of C-51 to the extent a secret policing law allows for any public disclosure, with the latest revelations including the sharing of information among multiple (and in one case unknown) agencies and the instructions given to CSIS in disrupting Canadian civil rights. 

- Finally, Tammy Robert nicely summarizes the Saskatchewan Party's Global Transportation Hub scandal.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Carol Goar summarizes the Institute for Research on Public Policy's review of the steps needed to rein in inequality in the long term, while pointing out the one factor which will determine whether anything gets done:

At first glance, it looks intimidating. But on closer examination, it is a sensible and coherent blueprint.

It has seven basic elements:

Expand the Working Income Tax Benefit. This refundable tax credit, brought in by former finance minister Jim Flaherty, makes work, even in a low-wage, precarious job, better than welfare. It could be broadened in next month’s federal budget

Revamp Canada’s outdated, threadbare, employment insurance system. Trudeau is promising to fix two easily correctable problems: cut the waiting time for benefits and channel more money into skills training. But much more is required. The two biggest imperatives are broadening coverage to all workers (as opposed to 40 per cent) and eliminating regional disparities in benefits.

Raise social assistance rates which fall below the poverty line in all 10 provinces. Regrettably Trudeau can’t raise the bar. Social assistance is a provincial responsibility and none of the premiers sees any urgency. Last week’s Ontario budget made it clear that Premier Kathleen Wynne is in no hurry to lift welfare recipients out of poverty.

Get moving on early-childhood education. It has been promised since 1984. Trudeau’s position is unclear, although the Liberal party is in favour of universal early education and child care. To give all kids a strong start, Ottawa would have to provide the provinces with funds to create thousands of preschool learning centres.

Improve high school teaching of science and math. Canada needs a generation of workers as numerate as it is literate to compete globally. Again, this is a provincial responsibility. Ontario has a litany of plans and goals. Qualified, enthusiastic teachers are harder to find.

Move gradually toward higher minimum wages. “Gradually” is clearly the premiers’ watchword. Not one province has a minimum wage that allows workers to cross Statistics Canada’s low-income cut-off. Ontario raised its minimum wage to $11.25 last October — an increase of 25 cents an hour.

“Executive compensation needs to be reviewed and addressed,” the authors submit, leaving readers to figure out who will do it and how.

If these proposals sound familiar, maybe that’s the point. There’s no mystery about what it takes to make a society fairer. It is a matter of political will.

- Nick Falvo's review of Jeannette Waegemakers Schiff’s book on working with homeless people highlights both the human factor on all sides of providing services, and the key connections between homelessness and other policy considerations. But PressProgress points out that the Manning Centre and assorted right-wing groups are still doing their utmost to destroy the labour movement which serves as one of the most important forces for fairness and inclusion.

- Jim Bronskill reports on the Libs' decision to suppress government documents about options for increased transparency.

- Finally, David Moscrop offers a detailed review of the benefits of a more proportional electoral system, along with responses to the major criticisms of proportionality.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Katie Hyslop contrasts Canada's longstanding recognition that housing is a human right against the gross lack of policy action to ensure its availability:

Canada has signed and ratified the 1976 United Nations' International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and in Article 11 it does recognize "the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions."

"Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right," the next sentence of the covenant says.
...
Canada has also ratified the UN's International Convention on Women's Rights, and had a hand in drafting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Both of these also mention a right to housing, either as part of a right to "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family," or on a basis of equity with men who enjoy a right to adequate housing.

"Essentially, Canada has committed on the international scene to respecting a right to adequate housing for every resident in Canada," said Margot Young, law professor at the University of British Columbia.
...
Evidence that Canada is failing to deliver on that right is in our overcrowded shelters, tent cities, or sidewalk camps, where an estimated 235,000 people experience homelessness every year. By definition, it would seem, their right to housing as guaranteed by the covenants Canada has signed, is being denied. 
...
The Canadian Homelessness Research Network estimated in a 2014 report that a comprehensive national housing strategy that included maintaining and expanding social and indigenous housing, as well as rental and home owner subsidies, could be implemented for about $4 billion a year -- twice what the federal government has been spending on social housing in recent years. Offsetting that, however, would be annual savings in emergency and social services that the Network estimated at $7 billion.

But the pay off would be more than financial, Larkin says. "One of my hopes would be that it would change the social structure of our cities," she says, "to accept that we should have diversity in all of our cities, that people who are not the richest of the rich should also be allowed to live in Vancouver, and that people should be able to age in place."

Meanwhile, Canadians may have a moral right to adequate housing enshrined in international covenants -- and our federal government has signed on in principle. But 40 years later, it's still not ready to put that principle into action. Getting it to do so, experts agree, will be a job for politics rather than the law.

- Meanwhile, Vineeth Sekharan examines the connection between adverse childhood experiences and later homelessness. And Denise Leduc documents how the Wall government's attacks on Saskatchewan corrections conditions are leading to dangerous results for inmates and their children.

- Art Eggleton makes the case for Canada to test - and ultimately implement - a basic income. 

- Tom Randall discusses how a major shift toward electric vehicles may be just a few years away - and would fundamentally reshape our current level of reliance on oil.

- Finally, Jim Bronskill reports on Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault's call for cabinet offices to be included in Canada's access to information legislation. And Andrew Mitrovica points to a recent hearing with CSIS and RCMP officials as a prime example of how we can't leave oversight of state action solely in the hands of MPs.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ben Casselman and Andrew Flowers discuss Raj Chetty's research on the U.S.' glaring lack of social mobility and fair opportunities:

Children from poor families are much less likely to work in adulthood than children from middle-class families. Only about 60 percent of children from the poorest families are working at age 30, compared with 80 percent of children from median-income families.² And the relationship extends beyond the very poor; the higher a person’s parents were on the earnings ladder, the more likely he or she is to work as an adult — at least until the very top, when employment rates dip again.
...
When the children of affluent families do work, they make a lot of money. The chart below shows how much 30-year-olds earn given their parents’ income. There’s a steady increase until the top few percentiles of parental income, when it spikes. The average man whose parents were in the 97th percentile earns about $60,000 at age 30; the average man who grew up in the richest 1 percent earns more than $80,000. (This measures only wage and salary earnings, so it doesn’t factor in any other advantages these young adults might have, such as trust funds, lower student debt, or parental help with housing or other expenses.)

- Karen Jusko studies (PDF) the U.S.' social safety net and finds that it falls short of meeting even half of the needs of low-income individuals. 

- The Canadian Labour Congress points out the widespread dangers raised by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And Brent Patterson reminds us how the TPP will enrich pharmaceutical multinationals at the expense of citizens and health care systems.

- Dennis Pilon refutes the claim that Canada is constitutionally trapped in an unrepresentative electoral system. And PressProgress highlights the unfairness of false majorities - no matter which party happens to benefit from one at a given time.

- Finally, Paul McLeod exposes examples of widespread abuses of power by the RCMP which typically don't get released to the public. And Jim Bronskill follows on the revelation that CSIS has wrongly collected tax data by reporting that the Canada Revenue Agency has no idea what information was improperly shared.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- David MacDonald offers some alternative suggestions that can do far more to reduce inequality and boost Canada's economy than the Libs' upper-class tax shuffle. And Karl Nerenberg reminds us that the most important scandal on our political scene is the constant stream of corporate tax giveaways which has done nothing to help anybody but the already-wealthy few.

- Meanwhile, Paul Buchheit challenges the right's constant effort to demonize people living in poverty.

- Mariana Mazzucato discusses the need for entrepreneurial government to fund and manage a transition to a clean economy. And the Vancouver Sun comments on the need for actual leadership rather than mere talk. But Thomas Walkom highlights Ontario's green strategy gone haywire as a reminder that money alone won't lead to the results we need either if it isn't paired with effective management.

- Don Lenihan points out that openness in government needs to include the willingness to actually engage with the people affected by policy choices, not merely to allow people to see one's own unilateral decisions. And Jim Bronskill's story as to how the Cons view peaceful protests as security threats signals that there's a long way to go on both fronts.

- Finally, Elizabeth Thompson exposes the Cons' deliberate (and less-than-surprising) attempt to continue imposing their agenda on Canada from beyond the political grave.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jim Stanford highlights how the Cons are focused on exactly the wrong priority in pushing for cuts at a time when Canada's economy is in dire need of a jump-start:

In the grand economic scheme, a deficit incurred as the economy slows is neither surprising nor undesirable.  But the Tories’ commitment to deficit elimination, no matter what, is all about politics.  First, it justified the big “social engineering” tax cuts (income splitting, so-called child support, etc.) that they announced last year as the centrepiece of their re-election campaign.  (Recall, in 2011 they promised those would go ahead only if the deficit were eliminated; that core promise is now on very thin ice.)  And now it is the most important remaining evidence for their traditional claim to be the “best economic managers.”  The government’s elevation of deficit elimination to all-encompassing priority, and its damaging but inconsistent pursuit of that objective (with unnecessary and damaging cutbacks imposed just as the economy was slowing) should be forcefully critiqued — not the existence of a deficit in itself.

Most curious of all is the government’s implicit and sometimes explicit assumption that merely eliminating the deficit itself will spur macroeconomic recovery.  This, of course, goes against everything we all learned in Macroeconomics 101.  How does not having a deficit do anything to strengthen economic growth?  And if getting to zero deficit means big cuts in public spending and employment, then it will obviously harm growth.

- Meanwhile, Simon Doyle examines the growing evidence that the Cons' economic mismanagement has pushed Canada into a recession.  And Jim Bronskill reports on the billions of dollars being written off by the federal government due to the Cons' lack of interest in maintaining an effective revenue collection system.

- Joe Cressy makes the case for requiring new developments to include desperately-needed affordable housing, while Jordon Cooper makes clear that affordability involves liveability as well as price. And Anna Mehler Paperny points out that we're all less healthy when our health care system is set up to refuse service to refugees.

- Robyn Benson explains why environmental protection is an essential goal for Canada's labour movement.

- Finally, LOLGOP highlights Jeb Bush's gall in demanding that workers put in longer hours to exacerbate the inequality which allowed him to be handed everything he could want for free. And Paul Krugman writes about the Republicans' preposterous laziness dogma in the face of an overworked populace:

It all adds up to a vision of the world in which the biggest problem facing America is that we’re too nice to fellow citizens facing hardship. And the appeal of this vision to conservatives is obvious: it gives them another reason to do what they want to do anyway, namely slash aid to the less fortunate while cutting taxes on the rich.

Given how attractive the right finds the image of laziness run wild, you wouldn’t expect contrary evidence to make much, if any, dent in the dogma. Federal spending on “income security” — food stamps, unemployment benefits, and pretty much everything else you might call “welfare” except Medicaid — has shown no upward trend as a share of G.D.P.; it surged during the Great Recession and aftermath but quickly dropped back to historical levels. Mr. Paul’s numbers are all wrong, and more broadly disability claims have risen no more than you would expect, given the aging of the population. But no matter, an epidemic of laziness is their story and they’re sticking with it.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jim Stanford discusses the need to inoculate citizens against shock doctrine politics, as well as the contribution he's hoping to make as the second edition of Economics for Everyone is released:

I suppose it is fitting (if tragic) that this new edition is being released into an economic environment that is still marked by fear, fragility and hardship. And this highlights a key theme of Economics for Everyone – and one of my key personal motivations as an economist whose career has been rooted in trade union and social justice settings (rather than in academia or business). Things will not get better for working people, if only the economy could recover, deficits be eliminated, and stability attained. Because this pattern of repeating crisis and growing polarisation is hard-wired into the DNA of modern capitalism: an economic system organised around the self-serving decisions of a surprisingly small and privileged segment of society. This crisis, no different from the last or the next, was not an unpredictable, unpreventable, one-off occurrence: a “black swan” event. Rather, it was the predictable, preventable result of an economy that puts the interests of financial wealth above the interests of the vast majority in working and supporting themselves. And it will happen again, unless and until we change the fundamental rules of the game.
...
(U)nemployment, stagnation, precarity, and austerity are not inevitable. They are the consequence of conscious choices by economic elites more concerned with protecting their privilege than with “growing the pie.” We possess the collective capacity to work and produce, and hence “pay for,” the consumption and services that we need for a decent life. The biggest hurdle may be political, not economic. How can we inspire, prepare, and mobilise large numbers of people into a common cause that puts people and the planet first on the economic pecking order, and fights for a world of sustainable full employment?

I believe that a central ingredient in our strategy must involve a deliberate strategy to build popular economic literacy among our communities and movements. For starters, we must have our own analysis of the current crisis: what happened, why it happened, what can be done to insulate working and poor people from its effects, and how to prevent it from happening again. We must have enough knowledge, and enough confidence, to reject false claims about why we are suffering, and what we can and can’t do about it.

And then we must go further. We need an inclusive, accessible and activist system for training our leaders and activists in the broader fundamentals of critical economics and political economy. And we need to do it systematically and energetically. Every social movement (unions, anti-poverty groups, equality campaigns, environmentalists, and others) needs to build this kind of education work into their overall movement-building strategy. This will strengthen our collective understanding of how the specific challenges we face stem from a common source: the structures and dynamics of financialised, globalised, aggressive capitalism. That understanding, in turn, will strengthen our collective ability to resist the regressive demands of employers and governments, and to fight for progressive change – both incremental and transformative.

- Meanwhile, Harsha Walia writes that Canada's immigration is doing exactly what the Cons want it to in handing a ready supply of disposable labour while limiting the opportunity for immigrants to find a place in Canadian society. But Ava Tomasula Y Garcia offers an example as to how our governments can create incentives for better corporate behaviour by pointing to Connecticut's new legislation requiring employers to pay back double any wages wrongly withheld from employees.

- Katie Hyslop, Chris Wood and David Ball are examining the challenges facing Canadians who are fighting a losing battle to find affordable and acceptable housing.

- Jim Bronskill reports that the Cons' intrusion into personal privacy through their new terror bill goes far beyond anything CSIS ever saw as necessary for public safety purposes. And Aaron Wherry looks at what comes next now that C-51 has been passed with Con and Lib support - though it's worth asking questions not only about how new secret police powers and information sharing might be treated after this fall's federal election, but also how they might be used to intrude on the election itself.

- Finally, Paul Jay interviews Kevin Zeese about the the TPP as the latest means of concentrating power in corporate rather than public hands, while Amy Kapcynzki writes (PDF) about its effect on health policy. And Brent Patterson discusses how the CETA be an obstacle to any meaningful action to combat climate change.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Harvey Kaye discusses how the rich's class warfare against everybody else has warped the U.S. politically and economically. And PressProgress observes that the Cons' reactionary politics have produced miserable results for Canadian workers.

- Which isn't to say the Cons plan to learn any lessons anytime soon, as James Fitz-Morris reports on the PBO's report showing how little anybody stands to gain from the massive cost of income-splitting. And Frances Woolley points out the utter frivolity of other vote-buying tax baubles, while also lamenting how much time is being spent studying pointless policy choices.

- Jim Stanford offers a primer on the investor-state dispute mechanisms being used to limit democratic decision-making in favour of corporate control around the globe. But Thomas Piketty writes that instead of handing still more power to our corporate overlords, we should instead be looking at a wealth tax as the best means of reining in inequality:

The ideal solution would be a global progressive tax on individual net worth. Those who are just getting started would pay little, while those who have billions would pay a lot. This would keep inequality under control and make it easier to climb the ladder. And it would put global wealth dynamics under public scrutiny. The lack of financial transparency and reliable wealth statistics is one of the main challenges for modern democracies.

Of course there are alternatives. China and Russia, too, must deal with wealthy oligarchies, and they do it with their own tools – capital controls, and jails whose bleak walls can contain the most ambitious oligarchs. For countries that prefer the rule of law and an international economic order, a global wealth tax is a better bet. Maybe China will come round to it before we do. Inflation is another potential solution. In the past it has helped lighten the burden of public debt. But it also erodes the savings of the less well off. A tax on vast fortunes seems preferable.

A global wealth tax would require international co-operation. This is difficult but feasible. The US and the EU each account for one-quarter of world output. If they could speak with one voice, a global registry of financial assets would be within reach. Sanctions could be imposed on tax havens that refused co-operation. Short of that, many may turn against globalisation. If, one day, they found a common voice, it would speak the disremembered mantras of nationalism and economic isolation.

- Jim Bronskill reports on CSIS' involvement in monitoring peaceful protests long before the Cons' terror bill is pushed through Parliament. Brent Patterson discusses the connection between that existing attitude and C-51. And Pete Dolack writes about Stephen Harper's contempt for any citizen activism.

- Finally, John Schwartz writes that for the first time, 2014 saw economic expansion without an increase in greenhouse gases caused by energy production - signalling that we're not limited to assuming a correlation between the two.