Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jeffrey Simpson has a bit of trouble recognizing that inequality applies at all rungs of the income ladder, not merely as a matter of resolving poverty. But otherwise his latest is well worth a read:

The Conference Board of Canada, hardly a bastion of far-left thinking, just reminded Canadians about the growing income inequalities in their society.

The richest group of Canadians, those in the top fifth of income earners, saw their share of national income rise from 1993 to 2008. Within that fortunate group, the biggest gainers were the super rich, the top 1 per cent. And they got even richer not so much from investments but from basic salaries of the kind paid bank presidents and company CEOs.

From 1980 to 2005, the earnings of the top group rose by 16.4 per cent, while middle-income Canadians’ incomes stagnated, and earnings for those in the bottom group slid.
...
So why are we a more unequal society? That’s the subject of fierce debate. Other countries’ income inequalities are also growing, albeit to varying degrees, and the inequalities in big developing countries such as China, India and Brazil are much higher than anything in Canada or Europe.

It’s argued that globalization rewards some of the highly skilled (and people who can manipulate other people’s money, as in hedge funds, banking and financial services), while leaving others behind. Clearly, the struggles of manufacturing in North America and Europe have robbed those societies of millions of good-paying, often unionized, jobs. Some of these have been replaced by better-paying service-sector jobs; most have not.

The Conference Board notes that government transfer programs flatten out some inequalities, but not as effectively as 20 years ago. Unemployment benefits go to fewer people; welfare rates haven’t always kept up with the cost of living.

Many of the Harper government’s tax cuts, for example, have disproportionately benefited those better off, since they’re not geared to income – as in all those itsy-bitsy bribes for sports equipment, the GST cut and the child benefit cheques than come through the mail every month.

- Apparently the Cons can't even hold a photo-op for their pension giveaway to the financial sector without somebody pointing out the more viable solution:

Retired graphic arts worker Rene Walti, who relied on saving inside an individual Registered Retirement Savings Plan, said he would be pleased to see his four children benefit from the pooled plan option.

“You try to instill in them that you start when they are 18, and save 10 per cent at least of every cheque. Then they have other ideas, as we had other ideas at their age, too. And, that’s the problem. People start too late in an RRSP.”

So, he said, the “the general expansion of the Canada Pension Plan should also take place, because some people don’t have the discipline to save. With a mandatory CPP deduction that is a bit higher than it is now, at least we can keep them out of poverty.”

Menzies said an expanded CPP “certainly hasn’t been taken off the radar screen,” but provincial finance ministers agreed the pooled plans would be the fastest way to offer Canadians a better savings option.

- Dan Gardner is right to note that the Cons' dumb-on-crime strategy is neither entirely new, nor based on a direct attack on historic sentencing principles. But aside from the hope of a shift back in the longer term, is there really much value in avoiding changing the principles used in exercising discretion (in both sentencing and parole) while severely limiting the outcomes that are actually available?

- Finally, David Sirota points out why fast food is cheaper than healthier alternatives - with a heavy emphasis on subsidies for major components of the less-healthy food.

All you need to know

Ah, the prestige of being appointed into federal cabinet. The raised profile, the responsibility to make decisions on weighty matters affecting the country...wait, what's this?

We filed an ATIP request for Min/State Finance Ted Menzies briefing books: Answer today: There are none.

Never mind: apparently the main difference between being a Harper cabinet minister and a Tim Horton's cashier is that the cashier would normally be expected to learn the menu before starting.

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday.

- Obviously missing from Ted Menzies' excuses for the Cons' decision to do nothing about the Canada Pension Plan: a single word of explanation as to how anybody is better off setting up new funds for private profit rather than actually expanding the CPP to include more people. This might be a point worth pressing, no?

- Maude Barlow weighs in on some of the issues with the proposed Canada-Europe free trade agreement.

- Bill Curry points out one significant drain on Canada's federal coffers that would serve as an obvious means to increase revenues if the Cons were the least bit serious about dealing with the deficit:

Billions of dollars worth of credits and tax writeoffs for everything from construction tools to textbooks and kids’ sports fees have been piling up for years. Their expansion ramped up under the Conservatives before the recession hit. Now in leaner times, they continue to eat up cash.

Billed as tax “cuts” when they are announced by politicians, they live on in the federal books as “tax expenditures.” The semantic debate between politicians and academics continues as the number of credits rise.

The annual report detailing their cost runs for 24 pages.

- Finally, Jamies Bowie may give far too much credit to the Libs' earlier lack of accomplishment. But it would certainly be worth taking his suggestion to start compiling a list of Con programs that did nothing toward their nominal ends - so stop by and add your suggestions.

They know nothing

It doesn't figure to be by accident the Cons' leading media ally is pushing a story about the Board of Internal Economy which governs MPs' expenses rather than digging into far greater and more opaque spending by the Cons. But it's still the Cons who come off worst when it comes to having anything to say about a committee that's of obvious interest to all MPs:

Many MPs – including Democratic Reform Minister Steven Fletcher – did not want to say whether they support the board holding some open meetings.

“No comment on that one,” said Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai.

“I know nothing,” echoed Conservative MP Ted Menzies.

“I don’t have an opinion. I would rather speak with our (caucus) members and see what their views are on it,” said Liberal MP Scott Brison.

“Having never sat on this committee, I’m not even sure how it works but…I don’t see how the public would gain by knowing the internal nitty-gritty,” said Bloc Quebecois MP Nicole Demers.

“I’m not on that board. I keep very concentrated on my committee responsibilities. I’m not certain what they are even looking at right now. Thanks so much,” said Conservative MP Chris Warkentin as he ran away in the opposite direction.

And for those keeping track, there's exactly one party which isn't contributing to the list of MPs playing dumb or trying to avoid the issue:

NDP MP Joe Comartin said he thought “it probably would help” if the board didn’t always meet behind closed doors and if it better communicated how decisions are reached.

What a coincidence

Shorter Ted Menzies:

Absolutely everybody our government talks to shares our passion for slashing and burning the public sector. Now could somebody please turn up the white noise machine to drown out the civil servants trying to get our attention?

Could have been avoided

One of the more interesting developments on the federal political scene last week was the first wave of public discussion about the fact that the Cons went out of their way to avoid actually passing their much-promoted home renovation tax credit - presumably (as noted by Paul Wells) as a means of ensuring that the Libs roll over on a fall confidence vote. But it's particularly remarkable in retrospect how thoroughly the strategy was telegraphed.

Here's an exchange between Lib MP Massimo Pacetti and Deficit Jim Flaherty all the way back in February:

Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
...
The home renovation credit doesn't seem to be anywhere in the budget, it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the ways and means. And the third quick question is, has anybody calculated how much money the Government of Canada is guaranteeing via EDC loans, BDC loans, CMHC, swapping bad assets for good assets? Has anybody made a calculation as to how much money the Government of Canada is on the hook for?

Hon. Jim Flaherty:
The home renovation tax credit is not in the bill; it was in the ways and means. It's a tax measure, yes, and it has been approved by the House. I had this discussion recently with your colleague from Markham--Unionville. This is not easy to design. The design is complex. So the home renovation tax credit will be in the usual second budget bill this year.

Let's start by dispensing with the excuse that some complex design was required which would take months upon months for the Cons to work out compared to the rest of the budget. Remember that the bill which the Cons put forward was the same 551-page behemoth which gutted the federal pay equity structure, rewrote rules about competition and foreign investment and created new, accountability-free rules for federally-run "bridge institutions" in the case of a financial meltdown. From that starting point, it shouldn't have been all that difficult to make the case that the Cons should have been able to get their act together to include a single tax credit which supposedly formed the centrepiece of their stimulus package.

But failing that, the Cons would have had a few months in which to pass the home renovation tax credit as a standalone bill before the summer break - which presumably would have made for a reasonable request for cooperation over the balance of the spring session. Instead, the Libs were happy to ignore an obvious trap which seems set to close on them over the next couple of months.

Now, would it have been obvious at the time that the trap wouldn't be sprung until the fall? Let's note that the concept of a "usual" second budget bill is somewhat misleading given that only once have the Cons actually allowed a session of Parliament to last through an entire calendar year beginning with a budget. But for anybody checking their history, it should have been a fairly simple matter to note that their second budget implementation bill in 2006 wasn't even introduced until October of that year.

So from the time of Flaherty's response to Pacetti nearly six months ago, it should have been clear what was afoot. And indeed the Libs' current position is that they saw the problem coming:

Liberal finance critic John McCallum said he asked Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to put the credit in the spring budget implementation bill so consumers would have certainty, but Flaherty apparently declined.

"I still think it will go through at the end of the day because we will certainly honour it, but people might still have a nagging doubt until it is passed and this could have been avoided," said McCallum.

But the reality is that it's the Libs who chose to support Deficit Jim's budget on the Cons' terms. Which means that if and when the Libs get strong-armed into backing the Cons once again based on an inevitable set of threats about the home renovation tax credit, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.

Uncooperative

It's been laughable enough to see the Cons' attempt to paint themselves as willing to work with the opposition parties taken as fact by media and Libs alike in the absence of any real evidence that the Harper government plans to do anything but resume strongarming the Libs into submission. But Ted Menzies' latest should put any doubt to rest:

The Conservative government will not agree to any more budget amendments but it's keeping its options open to inject more stimuli later this year.

"In this budget we're not going to accept any amendments and why should we," said MP Ted Menzies, parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance.

Now, the obvious answer is that the Cons have just unveiled a 551-page monster of a budget bill which is laden with problematic content - some of which was at best hinted at in the Cons' budget motion, and some of which is completely new.

But Menzies has given notice the Cons won't even consider the idea that a single provision in their mammoth budget bill should be subject to review or negotiation. Which would seem to be as strong an indication as possible that the Cons are back to their usual shove-it-down-their-throat style of government - leaving only the question of whether the Libs will once again be happy to play along.

Deep thought

Somebody should tell Ted Menzies that it's faster to cut and paste Con talking points than to type them out by hand.