Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Saskatchewan election day reading. And if you haven't voted yet, now's the time! (Update: Also, ReginaPosterBoy's summary of the Sask Party's track record (via Cathie) is well worth a look.)

- Alex Birrell and Sophie Jin report on the children who have died in Regina's underresourced shelter system. And Peter Zimonjic reports on Scott Moe's refusal to even reply to the federal government about any plan to provide people with needed housing over the winter. 

- Alex Ballos, Bashir Bello and Jared Wesley call out the UCP for importing the U.S. Republican playbook to Alberta (after providing no warning whatsoever in the province's election campaign). And Ben Quinn discusses how the UK's National Trust has fought back against anti-environmental disinformation. 

- Wes Davis and Richard Lawler report on the attempt by cable, home security and advertising lobby groups to block any attempt to make it easy for consumers to unsubscribe from services. And Freddy Brewster reports on the business groups pushing to eliminate any liability for the nondisclosure of business failures - and in the process confirming that any rhetoric about shareholder interests is secondary to the presumed supremacy of unaccountable corporate insiders. 

- Meanwhile, both Will Bunch and Noah Berlatsky offer scathing criticisms of the billionaire media owners who have chosen to bow down preemptively in the face Donald Trump's plans to misuse public power to punish his enemies, rather than allowing for editorial decisions to support democracy and the rule of law. 

- Finally, John Cartwright writes that the answer to destructive right-wing populism and atomization is to work on building a society that focused on public well-being. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jennifer Rigby and Julie Steenhuysen report on the latest COVID-19 wave and its direct connection to the elimination of public health protections. Eric Topol writes about the role additional boosters may play in somewhat mitigating the second Omicron wave, while Paulina Kaplonek et al. find differences in vaccine immunity, suggesting that a variety of vaccines may produce more effective protection. The Karolinska Institute discusses how even mild COVID cases produce inflammation in immune cells which may last for months. And Charline McCone rightly asks why we're still missing basic answers about long COVID two years after it became a reality for large numbers of people. 

- Meanwhile, Bruce Arthur looks into Doug Ford's apparent retaliation against doctors who dared to warn the public about the dangers people face and the failure of their government to respond with even a modicum of caring or competence. 

- Jamie Henn makes the case for the oil industry to pay a windfall profit tax as people are required to pay increasing prices which bear no apparent relationship to any factor other than profiteering. Mark Chediak discusses the reasons for skepticism about hydrogen blending as a substitute for displacing fossil fuels, while Nicola Seguin notes that electric vehicles won't accomplish anywhere near as much as ensuring people don't need individual cars to move around their communities. 

- Finally, Tom Parkin writes about the Cons' anger over the NDP-Lib supply and confidence agreement which both moves Canada in a more progressive direction, and takes away their plan for constant election threats. And John Cartwright discusses the work to be done in turning an improved Parliamentary environment into lasting change for the better. 

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon explains how higher taxes on the wealthy can be no less a boon for the economy than for the goal of social equality:

In fact, empirical analysis shows that while the relationship between higher taxes and economic growth is complex, there is no proof that raising taxes on the wealthy will lead to slower economic growth.  In fact, in many countries, including Canada, higher growth rates in the post-Second World War era have been associated with much higher marginal tax rates.
...
Between 1940 and 1980, the top marginal income tax rate in Canada was much higher, at well over 70 per cent. Despite these high rates, Canada's economy prospered. In other words, with a proposed new tax bracket in Canada of a mere 33 per cent, we are still far from reaching past levels, and even further away from levels that would be detrimental to tax revenues or even growth. We could increase it even higher with no repercussions on growth or even job creation, and the benefits of a less unequal wealth concentration could even have a positive effect on the economy.
...
(H)ow can we explain higher taxes on the rich and higher growth? It seems counterintuitive. Yet, it isn't, for two reasons. First, higher taxes on the top one per cent reduce income inequality. Many studies show that a more even (or less uneven) distribution of wealth and income contributes to higher spending and growth.

In the case of Canada, the higher tax rate for high-income earners is compensated by lower taxes on the middle class, who then will have more money to spend. Since the top one per cent save a higher proportion of their income, raising taxes for them won't affect their consumption, just their savings.

Second, by collecting more tax revenues, governments can spend more, and there is a definite and proven correlation between higher government spending and higher economic growth, despite all the non-Keynesian naysayers. The data is clear on this.

- Juliette Jowit discusses the pathetic pace being made on the path toward gender pay equity. And Maureen Conway points out the need for both public policy and labour relations decisions oriented toward improved long-term outcomes - particularly given the glaring failure of short-term thinking over the past few decades.

- The Associated Press reports that a particularly egregious example of employer abuses is resulting in rare but well-deserved jail time for the perpetrator.
 
- Charles Mandel discusses John Brennan's observation that climate change is already (and will increasingly become) a major source of political instability, while David Roberts offers a useful analogy to gravity in assessing its effects. And Geoff Stiles offers a proposal as to how Canada can go from being a laggard to a leader at the Paris climate change conference.

- Finally, Doug Saunders writes about the importance of integration in order to combat extremism of all kinds. Tabatha Southey reminds us that hatred and ignorance between ethnic and religious groups only tend to reinforce each other. And John Cartwright notes that there's a particular need to speak out against bigotry in the wake of an election campaign where multiple parties including the deposed government deliberately stoked it for their political advantage.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Adam Radwanski points out how Stephen Harper's continuing Senate embarrassment figures to play into the NDP's hands:

If Mr. Harper was looking to signal once and for all that he’s abandoned his populist roots, he could scarcely have done better than Wednesday’s Senate appointments. Little more than two weeks ago, Josée Verner, Larry Smith and Fabian Manning were all rejected by voters in their ridings – the latter two after biding their time with supposedly temporary gigs in the Red Chamber. Now, all three will have the opportunity to serve in Parliament anyway, at what is theoretically a higher level, courtesy of the leader who only a few weeks ago was still extolling the virtues of an elected Senate.
...
(F)or the New Democrats, this is a dream issue...It will give Mr. Layton, who has argued that the Senate should be abolished altogether, an opportunity to continue positioning himself as the outsider standing up for ordinary Canadians against Ottawa’s culture of entitlement – a message that will be key to any future success west of Ontario.

The Conservatives spent much of the recent campaign enjoying the NDP’s surge, because it mostly came at the expense of the Liberals. But for all that Mr. Harper might relish the prospect of his only national opposition coming from a party firmly to the left of centre, he might enjoy it a little else if that party starts challenging him on what was once safe Conservative turf. A few more announcements like Wednesday’s, and that might start to be a real concern.

- And the NDP looks to be making sure that the Cons can't wriggle their way out of their responsibility for perpetuating a bloated and non-representative upper chamber.

- John Cartwright nicely sums up how our economy is designed to avoid providing good jobs:

With millions of baby boomers retiring in the next decade, one would think that the law of supply and demand for skills would allow new employees to ask for better standards, not worse. But the CEOs already have figured out a response to that. First, the massive increase in the temporary foreign worker program has allowed entire sectors to keep wages low. And second, they have relentlessly attacked collective agreements in both the public and private sectors, resulting in many workers being thankful to keep what they have, let alone improve standards. Nobody mentions that Air Canada agents and Canada Post letter carriers earn less than the average wage in Toronto. The constant, shrill accusations are that these men and women are overpaid and need to accept even less.

That is why the anti-union rhetoric repeated daily by business think-tanks, columnists and politicians is so useful in the CEOs’ strategy. Only unions possess the power to frustrate their plans, and weakening unions is the key to lowering wages and benefits in tomorrow’s economy. The fact is the standard of living that so many take for granted was achieved through struggle. Whether by unionization or other forms of collective action such as the women’s movement, it was always opposed by the elites on Bay Street.

It is the labour movement that has advocated so strongly to improve standards for all working Canadians, as we did with the fight for maternity benefits and to increase the minimum wage. Labour is at the forefront of the efforts to improve retirement security for all. And labour continues to demand that we create a just society and economy that offers good jobs for all.

If you are under the age of 35, pay close attention. Your standard of living, and that of your children, is being decided right now in the boardroom, the workplace and even on the picket line. Sooner rather than later, you will need to pick a side.

- And Jim Stanford highlights the Harper Cons' leading role in attacking workers:

The government has thrown away any guise of neutrality. It has abandoned the principle of leaving free collective bargaining up to the private parties. It invokes phony arguments about the economic recovery, to justify virtually anything it wants to do.

We must also remember that the government could play a more constructive role in resolving the underlying problems that have contributed to theconflicts at Air Canada, Canada Post, and many other bargaining tables.

We need to expand the Canada Pension Plan, which is the most universal, portable, efficient, and secure pension system in the land. We need stable, long-run funding rules for defined-benefit pensions, and an insurance system to backstop pension plans when companies get into trouble.

These are things that government could do to strengthen workers’ pensions, and improve the chances that hard-working Canadians can retire with dignity and security. Instead, this government just jumped right into the middle of collective bargaining, clearly on the side of corporations, to help take pensions away from workers.

- Not that we should expect the Cons to be honest about what they're doing - any more than they're being in hiding their slashing of the public service from the likes of Paul Wells:

(I)t may be a bit ambitious for The Hill Times to put the name “breakout summary of the total reduction in spending” on the information Treasury Board actually provided, because what TBS actually provided was the number “$720 million.” Then they say, if you want to know more, “please” consult the Public Accounts “in the fall.” Handy reminder: it’s June.

But that’s only my third-favourite part. My second-favourite part is where they invite reporters to “contact individual departments or agencies” for more information on their Strategic Review cuts, because boy howdy, that sure has been working well for me so far.

And my first-most-favourite part of this whole email is the little note to me at the bottom where, “for additional information,” they “invite” me “to consult the Budget documentation.” Which made me laugh a long time, because it was the Budget documentation that got me asking these questions in the first place. In March.

Meanwhile Bill Curry at the Globe has been doing excellent work chronicling the real scope and effect of the cuts. He’s not getting a stitch of information from the government, of course; he’s getting it from the public-sector unions, in dribs and drabs as the layoff notices are handed out.

Duly noted. Real information on these cuts will not be coming from the government, at least not before fall.