Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Andrew Gregory reports on a new meta-study showing which options have been most effective in controlling the spread of COVID-19 - with mask-wearing ranking as the single most effective measure, though numerous other ones have also been important. And CBC News reports on the impending Canadian approval of a pediatric vaccine dose for ages 5-11, though Stuart Trew points out how Canada is acting as a barrier to the availability of vaccines in developing countries which desperately need them.  

- Kathryn Blaze Baum and Matthew McClearn discuss why British Columbia is trapped in cycles of extreme weather arising out of the climate crisis. And Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes document how the oil industry has systematically deceived the public about the dangers of climate change for decades, while Amy Westervelt writes that overcoming that deeply-embedded disinformation remains one of the key steps in working to avert a total climate breakdown. 

- Paris Marx discusses why we can't rely on self-absorbed and avaricious billionaires to save us from the climate crisis. Mitchell Thompson notes that Canada's business elite has long had a soft spot for fascism when there's money to be made (or leftists to be attacked). And Armine Yalnizyan warns against using interest rate hikes being demanded by capital owners to address inflation when that will only result in even worse outcomes for people with lower incomes.  

- Umair Haque writes that the U.S.' structural inequality - in which any economic gains are more than skimmed off the top by the already-wealthy - has sent it into a civilizational death spiral of despair and distrust. And Eric Ohrn studies (PDF) how the spoils of corporate tax breaks have been directed toward executive compensation rather than wages for the working class. 

- Finally, Shannon Proudfoot writes that any attempt to limit child care to being boutique women's issue misses the broader importance of making it available.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Adam Miller highlights what we can do to limit the spread of COVID-19 over the winter to come. And Pratyush Dayal reports on the Saskatchewan cancer patients who are rightfully angry at Scott Moe for falsely declaring the pandemic over and endangering their life-saving treatment.

- William Moss, Lawrence Gostin and Jennifer Nuzzo summarize where pediatric vaccines stand as the U.S. rolls them out (and Canada hopefully prepares to do so soon). And Jonathan Howard points out the folly of using "underlying conditions" as an excuse to refuse to vaccination (or mandate vaccination).

- Alex Himelfarb suggests some reading on the big change we need as we work on responding to an ongoing pandemic and worsening climate crisis.

- Mark Hertsgaard discusses the importance of stronger news coverage in portraying what's at stake in a climate breakdown.

- George Monbiot writes that we should be treating climate funding for developing countries as reparations rather than aid. And Stuart Trew et al. point out that the same corporate investment treaties which have locked in the upward flow of wealth are tying the hands of governments trying to implement climate policy, while Manual Perez Rocha notes the complete absence of any effort to remove that barrier to climate action in Glasgow.

- Finally, Shaina Luck reports that the Libs' attempt to substitute inaccesible subsidies for an actual social housing policy is resulting in large amounts of announced money sitting unused while homelessness escalates.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Ian Sample and Peter Walker report on the Parliamentary inquiry which has found the UK's response to COVID-19 to be one of the country's most severe public health failures in history. Denis Campbell reports on a new study showing that the UK's growing gap in lifespans based on income has only been exacerbated by the pandemic. And Jackie Dunham reports on the long-term damage to the nervous system being observed in people who have suffered from long COVID. 

- Meanwhile, Jake Johnson discusses the U.S.' hoarding of COVID vaccines. And Rebecca Robbins points out how after being gifted a vaccine developed through public investment and targeted donations, Moderna is going out of its way to avoid making any supply available to the poor countries where they're most needed. 

- Julieta Caldas chimes in on how philanthropy generally serves to entrench wealth and power. And Lori Nikkel writes that Canada now has significantly more food charities than grocery stores - while asking how we can accept that reality. 

- CBC News offers a reminder of some of the revelations about tax evasion prior to the Pandora Papers - while at the same time making clear that mere knowledge of offshoring has been far from enough to ensure that the wealthy are required to pay their fair share. And Roman Lanis and Peter Wells warn that we'll continue to see more of the same unless we eliminate the secrecy that allows assets to be hidden. 

- The Associated Press reports on the first step of achieving agreement among 140 countries on a minimum corporate tax rate. But Michael Galant highlights the problems with hoping for inequality to be solved based on the self-interested designs of the wealthiest countries. 

- Finally, Stuart Trew discusses how investment treaties continue to give corporate owners precedence over democratic governance in the public interest - even under newer models which supposedly respond to environmental and labour concerns. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Steven Greenhouse writes that COVID-19 may produce a wave of unionization as workers see how little they're valued, and how cavalierly they lives are put at risk. And Ed Yong follows up on the plight of coronavirus "long-haulers" who have faced a constantly-changing series of symptoms for a period of months.

- Smriti Mallapaty highlights the factors needed to safely reopen schools - with minimal community spread being the most crucial point, while masking, class sizes and hygiene also loom large. And Nicole Bogart reports on the school bus drivers who are being asked to take serious risks with little apparent consideration for their health.

- Victoria Gibson reports on the worrisome correlation between COVID-19 cases and eviction proceedings among Toronto neighbourhoods.

- Shelly Hagan discusses how a drop in immigration to Canada as a result of border restrictions may threatens our social and economic development. And Beatrice Paez and Palak Mangat report on a push by some MPs to ensure that farm labourers are able to seek permanent residency, rather than being trapped in precarious and temporary work.

- Stuart Trew is optimistic that the Libs' prorogation of Parliament can create space for discussion about a just recovery. Linda McQuaig argues that the NDP should use its balance of power to push for a Canadian Green New Deal. Jagmeet Singh writes about the importance of investing in child care. And Eric Hoskins offers a reminder of the net benefit to be won by investing in a universal pharmacare program.

- But Matt Korda points out that rather than investing a healthy population and environment, the Libs are instead pushing forward with expensive purchases of armed surveillance drones. Hawa Mire notes that the Libs have continued to stall on action against systemic racism. And Arnold August observes that the Trudeau government is one of the few international supporters of armed regime change in Venezuela.

- Finally, Grace Blakely offers some lessons from Jeremy Corbyn's tenure as leader of UK Labour - including the importance of fighting for social justice in the face of establishment opprobrium.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- CBC examines the obscene corporate subsidies doled out by Canadian governments - with Alberta ranking as the worst offender even as it also takes in less revenue than other provinces. And Jeff Gray reports on the growing gap between Doug Ford's budget promises and the revenue available to keep them - even as he hastily backtracks on a few of his most antisocial cuts.

- Meanwhile, Michael Ungar points out how resilience depends on social supports, rather than being a matter of individual choice or merit as it's so often portrayed.

- Murray Mandryk discusses the Saskatchewan Party's telling refusal to evaluate the effect of its much-criticized "lean" program imposed on the province's health care system - as well as the research confirm that it was an utter waste.

- Stuart Trew highlights how spin about "Good Regulatory Practices" in the new NAFTA serves only to limit the ability of governments to act in the interest of citizens and workers. 

- Finally, Andrew Coyne points out that the unelected Senate's interference in bills dealing with preventing oil spills and ensuring effective environmental assessments represents just another instance of obsolete political structures thwarting the will of Canadian voters.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Andrew Jackson argues that Canada has nothing to gain in trying to race Donald Trump to the bottom when it comes to corporate taxes:

While marginal effective corporate-tax rates are clearly a factor in business investment decisions, they are by no means the only or most decisive factor.

Non-tax factors such as access to natural resources, skills, energy costs, house prices, urban amenities and other locational advantages play a major role in investment decisions, especially in the knowledge-intensive sectors. And investment will be limited if demand is sluggish, even if the after-tax cost of capital is relatively low.

Further, cuts to the corporate-tax rate are costly since most of the benefit goes to existing firms making profits from past investments, rather than to new firms or those thinking about expansion. A cut in the tax rate is also irrelevant to companies earning so-called rents or above-average profits compared to the international norm. For example, during the resource-boom companies would have invested in the oil sands even if the corporate-tax rate had been much higher, since expected profits were very high.

Canadian banks, utilities, airlines, railways, retailers and cultural industries among others all have to operate mainly in Canada to serve the Canadian market, so they are not very responsive to changes in tax rates compared to other countries.

It is striking that the level of business investment in Canada as a share of GDP remained almost unchanged in recent years as the Harper government cut the federal corporate-income-tax rate to 15 per cent today from 22.1 per cent in 2006, at a cost of about $12-billion in annual tax revenue.

Deep corporate-tax cuts came at the price of foregone public investments in areas such as infrastructure, research, education and skills that could have contributed more to productivity growth. Introduced at a time of deficits, these tax cuts also increased the public debt.

- Stuart Trew points out how the USCMA is designed to prevent regulators from fulfilling their mission of protecting the public interest. And Jeremias Prassl offers some suggestions as to how to bring collective bargaining into the gig economy.

- Cory Doctorow writes that the researchers whose first outlier study was initially used to criticize Seattle's minimum wage increase have clarified that all kinds of lower-earning workers were better off for the boost.

- Matt Ford discusses the growing gap in civil rights under the Trump administration. And Tyson Brown explains how discrimination and associated social factors lead to long-term disparities in health outcomes.  

- Emily Chung reports on the findings of the Living Planet Report of a 60% decline in vertebrate populations since 1970 due to overdevelopment and climate change.

- Finally, Andrew Coyne writes that the most important question on British Columbia's referendum ballot is the first one - and that there's no justification for clinging to the unrepresentative status quo based on process complaints.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Richard Partington reports on new OECD data showing that wages are continuing to soar for the lucky few in the developed world while stagnating for everybody else, as well as on the Rowntree Foundation's observation that single-income families in the UK have fallen far below an acceptable standard of living. Federico Diez and Daneil Leigh chart the connection between corporate concentration and the exploitation of workers and consumers. And Steph Sterling and Marshall Steinbaum examine how the Trump Republicans' tax giveaway to the rich will only make matters worse in the U.S.

- Meanwhile, David Dayen examines how California tax policy was taken hostage by soda companies - who threatened to push a referendum effectively barring municipalities from setting their own revenue policies to unless they were singled out for exemption from taxes which were proving effective both to raise revenue and improve public health. 

- Linda Stamato points out how the Trump administration is making housing even less affordable for the people who need it most. And Sadiq Khan and Ada Colau recognize the importance of treating housing as a right which must be provided to everybody, rather than a profit stream to be withheld where it serves the cause of further enriching owners.

- Stuart Trew offers a preview as to how Doug Ford's "value for money" rhetoric serves purely as a pretense to slash public services.

- Finally, Richard Denniss and Fergus Green point out the economic futility of undermining any climate change policy by pouring public money into pipelines.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ann Pettifor rightly questions the supposed gains from austerity in belatedly balancing budgets only at the expense of avoidable social devastation. And the CCPA documents the billions of dollars in lost assets and thousands of jobs slashed in Saskatchewan even when Brad Wall was promising not to attack the province's public services (and simultaneously driving Saskatchewan into a deficit).

- Omar Khan writes about the racial and ethnic pay gap in the UK. And Stephen Buranyi points out that algorithmic recruitment practices only figure to make it more difficult for less-privileged applicants to find work, while John Harris notes that big data is creating the risk of similar issues in other areas of life.

- Stuart Trew discusses the fossilized view of energy which Canada continues to take in NAFTA negotiations. And Catherine McKenna's attempt to excuse Canada's falling far short of emission targets based on the bare hope that it will catch up later looks to signal both a lack of understanding of the underlying science of climate change which continues to get worse in the meantime, and a lack of seriousness in addressing it.

- Meanwhile, new research in the Lancet documents the massive gains in health which would be achieved by meeting the Paris climate change targets.

- Finally, Robin Sears comments on the need for government involvement in providing more basic services and supports through higher revenues - and the fit between that governing philosophy and the demands of a growing activist movement.

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.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Marco Chown Oved, Toby Heaps and Michael Yow discuss the long-term transition away from meaningful corporate tax contributions to Canada's public purse:

For every dollar corporations pay to the Canadian government in income tax, people pay $3.50. The proportion of the public budget funded by personal income taxes has never been greater.

At a time when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made tax fairness a centrepiece of his government, the Toronto Star and Corporate Knights magazine spent six months poring over tax data to determine how much income tax corporations are really paying.

We found the amount of tax most big companies pay has been dropping as a proportion of their profits for years, and not only because the corporate tax rate has been cut repeatedly. Canada’s largest corporations use complex techniques and tax loopholes to reduce their taxes significantly below the official corporate tax rate set by the government.
...
The 2011-2016 audited financial statements of all large Canadian corporations (those worth more than $2 billion) reveal they paid an average of 17.7 per cent tax.

During that time, the average official corporate tax rate in Canada for this group of companies was 26.6 per cent.

That 8.9 per cent gap translates into tens of billions of dollars that could have been used to pay for the schools, roads, hospitals, police and paramedics we all rely on.

- And Chown Oved also reports on the strong public appetite to close tax loopholes and ensure that corporations pay their fair share.

- David Macdonald and Martha Friendly study the glaring gaps in cost and availability of child care across Canada, while Randy Shore reports on the CCPA's proposed path to $10 per day child care in British Columbia.

- Erin Anderssen reports on new research showing the desperate need for improved access to mental health care in Ontario.

- Mark Hancock offers his take on what progressive trade policy should include - including a focus on what's best for workers and citizens rather than businesses alone. And Stuart Trew and Scott Sinclair discuss the possibility of seriously evaluating the effects of the many trade deals already on the books, rather than rushing into more.

- Finally, Shawn McCarthy reports on the World Bank's decision to stop lending to oil and gas projects as part of the world's transition away from dirty energy. And the CP takes note of Alberta's massive wind power savings resulting from its concerted effort to make a quick shift to renewables.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rupert Neate reports on a new study showing that the world's 1,500-odd billionaires between them control over $6 trillion in wealth.

- Stuart Trew sets out Canada's choice between corporate-oriented trade deals such as the CETA, or sustainable and fairly-distributed economic development. And Laurie Monsebraaten writes about the need for political action to rein in inequality among minority groups.

- Kate Aronoff discusses how U.S. Democrats are wasting an essential opportunity to respond to climate change. And Martin Lukacs highlights how the oil industry gets sweetheart deals which result in it pay far less royalties in Canada than nearly anywhere else, while Carl Meyer exposes how the Libs have pushed any discussion of fossil fuel subsidies behind closed doors.

- The Conference Board of Canada examines the massive return on an investment in child care - with each dollar funded leading to six in social and economic benefits. And Iglika Ivanova offers a step-by-step plan toward a universal child care system in B.C., while pointing out how Quebec's system has dramatically improved labour force participation for women with children.

- Finally, Chris Vanderbreekel reports on Jagmeet Singh's plan to provide federal funding to revive the Saskatchewan Transportation Company.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Jordy Cummings exposes the shady side of Justin Trudeau's shin persona. Dimitri Lascaris interviews Nora Loreto about Canada's relationship with the U.S. And Michal Rozworski challenges Trudeau's decision to serve as a prop for Donald Trump rather than defending Canadian values:

The point to remember is that there would be intense pressure from within the US business world to prevent a trade war in the first place. Given today’s highly integrated supply chains, even a proportionately small volume of trade can still be crucial. It matters less that trade with Canada accounts for just 5% of GDP if some of that 5% is specialized parts and inputs that can cripple production. And it’s not that easy to replace Canadian-made goods in this case: doing so would require long-term investments with considerable fixed costs in plant and equipment. It could be done, but it won’t be the result of one critical statement.

Nevertheless, Trudeau acts as if that’s a real risk. Even if there might be no personal love lost between our cosmopolitan neoliberal leader and his nativist protectionist counterpart, officially this week it was all smiles and handshakes. Trudeau ducked questions from reporters at his joint press conference, stating, “The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they chose to govern themselves.” This condescension misses the fact that a majority thinks that even worsening trade relationships would be a price worth paying for standing up to Trump—nevermind that fears of a worsening are overblown. Past prime ministers have been willing to stand up to US presidents over smaller things despite the trading relationship.

Trudeau has to be aware of Canada’s unequal standing in its relationship with the US but he doesn’t have to cower in the corner waiting for a strike from the bully that may never come. Being in less powerful in a trading relationship doesn’t equate to moral paralysis in other spheres. Economic disruption cannot be a cover for lack of spine. My hunch is that Trudeau knows this—that his failure to stand up to Trump is cowardice that has its source in political calculation not economic necessity.

- Brent Patterson comments on the need for Canada to seriously evaluate the dangers of the CETA and other corporate control agreements. And Stuart Trew and Scott Sinclair map out the road ahead as CETA undergoes scrutiny from the EU's member states.

- Alex Hemingway and Iglika Ivanova examine how the B.C. Libs have gone out of their way to impose a regressive tax system. And Marco Chown Oved reports on the Conference Board of Canada's study showing that Canada may be missing out on up to $50 billion every year in uncollected taxes.

- Meanwhile, the Economist notes that one of Trump's first major moves has been to facilitate bribery and corruption by allowing resource giants to conceal payments to foreign governments.

- Finally, Dan Durcan and Faiza Shaheen take a look at the realities of work in the U.K., where reasonable surface numbers of jobs are outweighed by the fact that the new work is generally low-quality and precarious.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Martin Kenney comments on Canada's continuing role in "snow washing" offshore tax evasion. The Conference Board of Canada examines the massive gap between what Canada should receive in public revenues, and what's actually taken in to keep our society functioning. And Kamal Ahmed highlights how employers are avoiding their responsibilities by relabeling work relationships.

- Joe Romm points out that Donald Trump's obsession with coal power - like that of other right-wing politicians - is doomed due to the ready availability of more efficient energy sources. Andrew Nikiforuk points out the $30 billion liability for inactive wells which may be absorbed by Alberta's citizens due to the lack of any requirement for the oil sector to clean up its own messes. Carol Linnitt notes that the Libs' promised tanker ban on British Columbia's north coast is anything but. Zoe Todd reports on still more research showing the connection between fracking and earthquake activity. And Melissa Davey discusses new research showing that the impact human activity on our changing climate far outweighs any natural effects.

- Nicholas Kristof reminds us how the trumped-up threat of terrorism pales in comparison to risks we think nothing about facing every day.

- Evan Dyer reports on the Libs' plans to sacrifice national sovereignty along with travellers' privacy and security in the interest of appeasing the U.S.' irrational fears. And Stuart Trew examines the lamentable track record of cross-border deregulation which has harmed the public in Canada and the U.S. alike. So suffice it to say that Michael Harris' hope that Justin Trudeau would doing anything besides go along with Donald Trump to get along is sadly misplaced.

- Finally, Sam Wong points out that even monkeys and dogs judge humans based on how well they treat others - making it all the more bizarre that so many voter pools seem to have decided to do otherwise.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Dani Rodrik discusses the growing public opposition to new corporate-dominated trade deals based on the lessons we've learned from previous ones:

Instead of decrying people’s stupidity and ignorance in rejecting trade deals, we should try to understand why such deals lost legitimacy in the first place. I’d put a large part of the blame on mainstream elites and trade technocrats who pooh-poohed ordinary people’s concerns with earlier trade agreements.

The elites minimized distributional concerns, though they turned out to be significant for the most directly affected communities. They oversold aggregate gains from trade deals, though they have been smallish since at least NAFTA. They said sovereignty would not be diminished though it clearly was in some instances. They claimed democratic principles would not be undermined, though they are in places. They said there’d be no social dumping though there clearly is at times. They advertised trade deals (and continue to do so) as “free trade” agreements, even though Adam Smith and David Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read, say, any of the TPP chapters.

And because they failed to provide those distinctions and caveats, now trade gets tarred with all kinds of ills even when it’s not deserved. If the demagogues and nativists making nonsensical claims about trade are getting a hearing, it is trade’s cheerleaders that deserve some of the blame.

One more thing. The opposition to trade deals is no longer solely about income losses. The standard remedy of compensation won’t be enough — even if carried out. It’s about fairness, loss of control, and elites’ loss of credibility. It hurts the cause of trade to pretend otherwise.

- Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew point out why progressives have reason to oppose the CETA, while Craig Scott rightly questions the Libs' spin on it And Gareth Hutchins reports on Canada's experience with challenges to democratic legislation under NAFTA as a cautionary tale for other countries.

- Jeremy Gilbert writes about the need for a social movement (going far beyond the partisan political scene) to provide a meaningful alternative to neoliberalism.

- Bob Mackin reports that the Vancouver International Airport Authority's CEO is highlighting the dangers of a selloff of airport assets. And Bill Curry notes that cities are raising important questions about the Libs' musings about diverting direct infrastructure funding toward an "infrastructure bank".

- Finally, James Wilt examines the utter incoherence of Brad Wall's excuse for a climate change plan.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Amy Goodman interviews Joseph Stiglitz about the corporate abuses the Trans-Pacific Partnership will allow to take priority over the public interest. And Stuart Trew and Scott Sinclair offer some suggestions to at least ensure that Canadians have an opportunity for meaningful review and discussion before being stuck with the TPP.

- Robert Benzie reports on a financial accountability officer's review finding that like so many other privatization schemes, the Ontario Libs' Hydro One selloff will only end up costing the public money.

- Jeff Sallot wonders whether the Trudeau Libs have the political will to keep their promise of electoral reform. And Chantal Hebert writes that the NDP has every reason to press the issue, particularly if the Libs show signs of reneging on their commitments.

- Finally, Andrew Mitrovica says good riddance to Stephen Harper, but also reminds us of the need to be wary of the Libs' incoming regime:

Lest we forget, Trudeau and the people around and behind him are the same Liberals who worship his father, helped get Chrétien elected and got Paul Martin anointed prime minister in what amounted to an insider-engineered coup d’état. That means they’re card-carrying members of the Liberal party establishment, not rabble-rousing outsiders inclined to upset or tinker with the status quo. So spare me the delusions that Trudeau Jr. is his “own man” who will do politics in a “new way.”

For goodness sake, Trudeau wasn’t even elected before his campaign co-chair, Dan Gagnier, quit after it was revealed that his was secretly telling his pals in the pipeline industry who to lobby — nudge wink — in the new Liberal government to shape national energy policy. These guys aren’t exactly tie-dye T-shirt-wearing radicals, OK?
...
...I take Trudeau at his self-serving word when he told us many times that he and the  Liberal party supported C-51 — with a few minor caveats — principally because he didn’t want to damage his chances of getting elected, even though the bill has unquestionably damaged the country.

Peter Pan isn’t going to get rid of C-51 as he should. He will make cosmetic changes to the law and call it “reform.” He’ll trot out the trope that he’s “balancing” our rights in the name of “security.” Indeed, his people are already leaking word to friendly reporters in Ottawa that he plans to “overhaul” C-51 not by ditching it, but by resurrecting old ideas about how to keep an eye on the spooks now armed with it.

You see: new crowd, same old story.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Les Leopold takes a look at the underpinnings of Bernie Sanders' unexpectedly strong run for the Democratic presidential nomination. And Sean McElwee discusses the type of politics U.S. voters are rightly motivated to change, as big donors have been successful in dictating policy to both major parties.

- The Edmonton Journal comments on the unfairness of first-past-the-post electoral politics both in allocating power across a political system, and in determining regional representation within it.

- Murray Mandryk calls out the Wall government for its contempt for public money when it comes to handing over billions of dollars to P3 operators.

- Finally, Stuart Trew offers his take on the meaning of Canada's federal election. And Doug Saunders offers his take as to how the Libs are likely to exercise authority through new "delivery units" - which serves as a warning as to the need to identify and advocate to non-traditional power structures:

Members of Mr. Trudeau’s staff say they are drawing on a set of ideas that emerged in Britain more than a decade ago under Tony Blair’s prime ministership and applied in a different version in Ontario under the Dalton McGuinty government, with results that pleased insiders but have left a questionable legacy. (It is no coincidence that Mr. Trudeau’s two top aides, Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, were products of the top-level machinery of that Ontario government.)

It is a system which, in its most complete form, uses high-level “delivery units” to push key goals across the entire public service, sometimes bypassing the hierarchy of cabinets, departments and administrations, putting multiple government departments under the watchful eye (and sometimes forceful hand) of new organizations that report straight to the prime minister and impose their own goals and measures on the workings of government.

Their plans are likely to disappoint officials hoping to see a return to the sort of cabinet-driven government of the Lester B. Pearson years, where powerful ministers were given the autonomy and trust to shape their departments and legacies on their own. It is also likely to disappoint those who wish for a complete turn away from the top-down, prime minister-centred approach of Stephen Harper. 
...
(T)he delivery approach has its skeptics. They include Prof. Savoie, who sees them as yet another level of complication for public servants who already have far too many layers of oversight.

New column day

Here, on how the Senate's failure to provide any second thought on C-51 may serve as the ultimate signal that it has nothing useful to offer Canadians.

For further reading...
- PressProgress' look at the Senate's sad history is well worth a read. The CBC reports on the Auditor General's findings about the widespread abuse of public money. And Ian Austen offers a U.S. perspective on what comes next for the Senate.
- Meanwhile, Karl Nerenberg explains why abolition is well within reach if anybody is willing to take a leadership role in pursuing it without reopening other constitutional issues. And Warren Kinsella argues that Tom Mulcair's determination to reach that goal is both the right and the smart course of action.
- In contrast, Brad Wall refuses to lift a finger toward the cause, even as he highlights why abolition makes a world of sense.
- Finally, Stuart Trew examines what happens now that the Cons' terror bill has been passed, while Joanne Cave suggests we can do better than settling for a false sense of security. Wes Regan comments on the Cons' and Libs' choice to set fire to Canadians' civil rights. And PressProgress reminds us of the Cons' dishonesty in pushing C-51.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- The World Bank's latest World Development Report discusses how readily-avoidable scarcity in severely limit individual development. Melissa Kearney and Philip Levine write that poverty and a lack of social mobility tend to create a vicious cycle of despair. And James Ridgeway examines the deliberate interference aimed at preventing many of the U.S.' poor from ever building secure lives.

- Meanwhile, Mark Thoma reminds us of the role the labour movement needs to play in ensuring greater equality across the income spectrum. And Deirdre Fulton writes that the first tentative steps toward improving the minimum wage as a matter of public policy have proven highly successful (contrary to the warnings of the corporate sector).

- The CP reports on Canada's embarrassing international status as one of the main obstacles to progress when it comes to climate change. And Harsha Walia writes that we'll need an alliance between labour, First Nations and environmental activists to produce a sustainable economy.

- Jessica Desvarieux reports on the extreme secrecy surrounding the TPP, while Dean Baker highlights how the arguments being made to try to push it on unsuspecting citizens are getting ever less plausible. And Stuart Trew and Scott Sinclair comment on its disastrous implications for Canada.

- Sean McElwee writes about the U.S. media's bias both in how it talks about issues, and in its choices as to which topics to cover.

- And finally, Katrina vanden Heuvel discusses the importance of public libraries as an essential source of economic and social benefits:

While it would be wonderful to assume that all media are available to all New Yorkers at all times—and that the only thing standing between us and the world is a sticky connection or a malfunctioning server—this simply isn’t so. And if you spend a morning observing a job-search program at the public library—where recent immigrants, perhaps, and parolees and recovering addicts sign up for their first email addresses and struggle with a QWERTY keyboard for the first time—you recognize such a sentiment as woefully naïve. As The New York Times editorialized last month, “The libraries are where poor children learn to read and love literature, where immigrants learn English, where job-seekers hone résumés and cover letters, and where those who lack ready access to the Internet can cross the digital divide.” Imagine everything you did today that utilized the Internet—checked your checking-account balance, ordered a birthday present for a friend, read your hometown newspaper—and now imagine having to go to the library, during library hours, to do it. Can’t make it to your local branch between 10 and 6 (between 1 and 6 at many Queens locations)? Tough luck. Hop on the bus and try again tomorrow during your 20-minute lunch break.

Beyond mere fairness, there are viable economic reasons for sustaining New York City’s public libraries. In 2010, the City of Philadelphia spent $33 million on its public libraries; private donations contributed $12 million more. Subsequent to the funding, the value of an average home located within one quarter-mile of one of the city’s 54 public library branches rose $9,630. In the aggregate, the public libraries contributed $698 million to home values in Philadelphia, which translated into an additional $18.5 million in property taxes for the city and school district. Other studies have demonstrated that for every tax dollar that libraries take in, communities receive anywhere between $2.38 and $6.54 in return. Simply put, it’s not just cruel to starve our libraries—and the communities that utilize them. It’s bad for business, and bad for America.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jessica McCormick and Jerry Dias respond to Stephen Poloz' view that young workers should be happy to work for free, and note that he of all people shouldn't be pointing the finger at individuals to address problems with systemic unemployment:

The most infuriating aspect of Poloz's statement is that he himself could do more than virtually any other Canadian to help put young people into real, paying jobs. Monetary policy is one of the most potent tools to stimulate spending power and job-creation. The Bank of Canada could do much more to create real jobs for young people (using conventional and unconventional policies regarding interest rates, monetary expansion, and exchange rates). But instead, it puts more priority on orthodox financial goals (like inflation targeting and non-interference in foreign exchange) than on full employment. Poloz is left to advise young people on how to "adjust" to this grim reality, instead of doing more to solve the underlying problem.

When there are far fewer jobs than job-seekers, there is a natural tendency for individuals to do whatever they can to personally survive. Individual actions such as preparing better resumés, developing good networks, and -- yes -- doing volunteer work, might increase one person's chance of landing a rare paid job. But those individual coping strategies hardly constitute an adequate policy response to a genuine social crisis. Poloz, and his counterparts in the federal government, need to develop and implement real solutions for youth unemployment, instead of issuing insulting platitudes to job-seekers.

- Meanwhile, Mike King and Edward Woolley examine (PDF) the effect of public investment on research and development, and find that it actually tends to "crowd in" more private innovation than would have happened otherwise. And SOS Crowns discusses the Sask Party's stubbornness in pushing private ownership and profit regardless of whether it makes any sense to do so - with liquor retailing serving as just the most recent example.

- Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew ask why we're not seeing any meaningful discussion of the CETA now that we know exactly what's included. And Aaron Cosbey looks at the risks of the CETA and other new trade deals, including wording which may require that complicated issues be regulated simplistically:

There are also some areas that give cause for concern around sustainable development objectives. The chapter on domestic regulation obliges parties to make their licensing requirements – which could include environmental permissions and approvals – “as simple as possible” in their application to all economic activity of each other’s nationals or firms. This is an unqualified requirement that could be disastrously interpreted.

- The Economist offers a handy summary of the dangers of Dutch disease.

- Finally, Frances Webber notes that the Harper Cons are far from the only right-wing government looking to undermine the idea of human rights, as the UK Conservatives are looking at declaring that rights can be removed from anybody who falls out of favour with the government.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Geoff Stiles writes that instead of providing massive subsidies to dirty energy industries which don't need them (and which will only have more incentive to cause environmental damage as a result), we should be investing in a sustainable renewable energy plan:

(W)hereas countries such as Norway have gradually reduced...subsidies as their oil industry matured, at the same time maintaining one of the highest royalty rates in the world, Canada has allowed its subsidies to remain at a relatively high level while many provinces have actually decreased royalties on oil company profits.

There is a clear need to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. But this is only the first step. A second step is to develop comparable subsidies and incentive programs for renewable energy and energy efficiency, to stimulate development of innovative green technologies.
...
There are relatively few examples of true subsidies for green technologies or industries in Canada at the federal level. There is an accelerated capital cost allowance (ACCA), which in addition to covering fossil fuel technologies, also covers “investments that produce heat for use in an industrial process or electricity by using fossil fuel efficiently or by using renewable energy sources”; and there is a tax benefit enabling use of flow-through shares, by which expenses incurred during the development and start-up of renewable energy and energy conservation projects can be fully deducted or financed. Current federal policy, however, is to gradually phase out ACCA for all energy forms.

Several federal subsidy programs that supported clean energy investments have actually been discontinued by the Harper government. The popular ecoENERGY program that provided grants to homeowners towards energy efficient retrofits was discontinued in 2011, and the EcoEnergy for Renewable Power program that provided per kWh supplements for wind energy systems was ended in 2013.

Restoring these subsidies is crucial if producers of low-carbon technologies and energy are to compete in a nascent market and offer consumers a fair choice of energy sources.

There are plenty of ways to incentivize a green transition. Increasing innovation-focused grants to research institutions, universities and manufacturers in the green technology field through Sustainable Technology Development Canada for example; or expanding the use of green technologies and green power in government buildings, using weighted scoring systems which favour green options over conventional fossil fuel options in government supply contracts.

What we are short on is not ideas of how to transition to a green economy, but the political will to make it happen.

- Carlo Fanelli points out how Ontario's provincial government - like many others - has forced municipalities into costly and ineffective privatization schemes. And Ryan Meili contrasts the availability of MRIs in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and questions why Brad Wall would be eager to triple the wait times patients currently face in Saskatchewan just to allow profiteers to make more money.

- James Baxter and Rick Salutin both have serious doubts about the claim that Canada lost any innocence based on this week's tragic shootings in Ottawa.

- Meanwhile, CBC highlights the role that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau's mental health issues played in the shootings. And Jon Woodward reports on Zehaf-Bibeau's own confused - and rebuffed - attempts to get treatment.

- Finally, Ricochet and Stuart Trew both comment on on the importance of taking a reasoned and thorough look at what can be done to prevent future incidents. But to nobody's surprise, the Cons are refusing to let our security policy be shaped by anything other than Stephen Harper's political whims. And Stephen Maher is rightly concerned about what that means:

(T)here is little reason to have confidence that the Harper government will strike the right balance between our safety and our freedom.

It’s likely that Harper, Blaney and the people around them want to find that balance, but we’re left to guess at that, because the government’s recent record — in particular with the online surveillance bill — is of misdirection and stealth, hiding behind a smokescreen of disingenuous talking points.

There is reason to worry about this lack of forthrightness, the government’s mixed feelings about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, its attacks on the courts and its flirtation with anti-Muslim messaging.

It would be comforting if new powers are coupled with new oversight, as they should be.
...
But the record of this government is of moving in the other direction, toward less oversight, not more.