Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- The Star-Phoenix calls for Saskatchewan's election campaign to focus on the future rather than the past. And Paul Orlowski reminds us of the continued callous corporatism that's in store if Brad Wall holds on to power.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Johnstone points out that the Saskatchewan Party's spin on the past bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality. And Geoff Leo fact-checks Wall's attempts to avoid responsibility for his government's Global Transportation Hub land scandal.

- The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives offers up its alternative federal budget aimed at both reducing poverty and generating development. And in one hopeful (if only preliminary) step, the Libs appear willing to consider strengthening Canada Post by looking at banking and other services, rather than treating stagnation and privatization as the only options.

- Danyaal Raza and Ryan Meili discuss the economic and health costs of expecting people to work while sick (or requiring them to forfeit pay if they can't).

- Finally, Tabatha Southey rightfully challenges the idea that activism is something to be criticized rather than applauded - and its roots in the belief that there are few if any social problems left to be ameliorated:

In part, the rejection of activism as a concept stems from a belief that a sufficient amount of change has already been made. It has to stop. We’ve literally done enough as a society – not-society can stop asking for stuff now.

It’s a way of thinking that emerges when people frame the righting of great historic wrongs (letting the other half of the population vote, not literally owning people) as concessions that one group has personally made, as largesse bestowed in some sort of ongoing negotiation for which there must be quid pro quo.

That’s just not how this better-society thing works, people. Yes, it’s not illegal to be gay any more. That doesn’t mean straight people get to demand more seasons of Everyone Loves Raymond and free Dockers when next everyone’s back at the bargaining table.

The constant disparaging of activism – the casual acceptance of the idea that the more dedicated a person is to a subject, the less they are worth listening to on that subject – has been fashionable for a while now.

The plethora of “Taxpayers for …” and “Concerned Citizens Against …” groups is a reaction to that trend. These people are “concerned,” about an issue, you see, having apparently rejected “Peeved” and “Indignant” as descriptors. We are to understand that while, yes, these groups are campaigning to bring about political or societal change through vigorous action, the difference is they’re right.

All of this is how we come to the less-than-clarion call to arms, “I am not an activist.”

Well, lady, take out another bus shelter, when you’re ready to say you are.

Musical interlude

Secondcity feat. Ali Love - What Can I Do

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Elise Gould studies the continued rise of wage inequality in the U.S. And Teuila Fuatai points out how a strong movement to improve minimum wages and study basic incomes in Canada still has a long way to go to secure a living income anywhere.

- Michael Geist's series on the problems with the TPP turns to the likelihood that Canada as a whole will lose jobs from the deal. And Glyn Moody points out that investor-state provisions end up giving corporations multiple opportunities to attack government actions.

- Robyn Urback writes that it's inhumane to ticket homeless people for having the nerve to exist - though of course, providing only a bus ticket instead is hardly an improvement. And Veronica Harnish observes that poverty alone can trap individuals in homelessness.

- Meanwhile, Paula Simons highlights the need for the Alberta NDP's crackdown on payday lenders. And CBC offers some needed background on the for-profit plasma industry introduced by the Saskatchewan Party.

- Finally, Tom Parkin rightly calls for marijuana possession to be decriminalized immediately - even as the Lib party which made legalization a signature issue now drags its heels on any action at all. And Dana Larsen highlights the tens of thousands of people continuing to be arrested for activity which Canada's government has promised to make legal.

New column day

Here, on the Wall government's embarrassing excuse for a strategy to reduce poverty in Saskatchewan - and the people who are being left behind or shipped away as a result.

For further reading...
- Again, the report of the Advisory Group on Poverty Reduction is found here (PDF). And I wrote here about the lack of investment in poverty and related issues from all levels of government in Saskatchewan.
- D.C. Fraser reported on the worried response to a plan to do nothing.
- And while I've previously linked to reports on the Saskatchewan Party's slashing of funding for the Lighthouse's homeless shelters, the news this week that people with mental health issues and no supports outside Saskatchewan are being issued one-way bus tickets out of the province only makes the Wall government look all the more callous.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Emily Badger discusses a new study showing just how much more expensive it is to be poor:

(T)he problem isn't simply that the poor aren't savvy about sales or bulk buying. They're more likely to use these tactics closer to the beginning of the month, when they have more cash on hand from paychecks or benefits. Then, they behave more like consumers who have more money.

Of course, the poor face a lot of other obstacles to reaping savings, too. They may not have access to larger supermarkets that offer a wider variety of cheaper items. Or they may not have the car you'd need to transport home 30 rolls of toilet paper, or the closet space you'd need to store them.

The world, in fact, is full of opportunities to save money — if you just have enough money to access them. If you can afford a Costco membership, you can buy pounds and pounds of incredibly cheap canned soup. If you can afford Amazon Prime (and have a stable mailing address and credit card), you can really rack up savings on costly items like diapers. And buying diapers in bulk can mean spending hundreds of dollars at a time (or borrowing hundreds of dollars from your future self).
...
These results, she says, should make us reconsider how poverty can prevent people from making smart financial decisions. If we simply drop a new supermarket into a food desert, for instance, that doesn't guarantee that poor people who live right next to it will be able to take advantage of all its savings. One possible solution is that retailers could consider pushing their deals to the beginning of the month. But they'd only be incentivized to do that — to help their customers pay less per unit — if they have to compete for these shoppers.

- And James Wood reports on the Alberta NDP's move to cut down on one of the costs of poverty by cracking down on predatory payday lenders. 

- Glen Hodgson comments on the urgent need for Alberta to develop a reliable tax base rather than relying on royalty revenues to pay its bills. 

- Laurie Monsebraaten writes about the UN's report showing a persistent housing crisis in Canada. And Jeremy Nuttall points out the need for a rights-based approach to basic human needs.

- Pete Evans reports on Oxfam's finding that the gender wage gap in Canada is actually growing. And PressProgress points out a few of the policy options available to push toward pay equity.

- Finally, Tonda MacCharles reports on a Senate hearing indicating that CSIS is stealthily making use of its new powers under C-51 with no public accountability. Thomas Walkom notes that CSIS' explanation as to what's being done under those powers only highlights how unnecessary C-51 actually is. And Leadnow responds by rightly demanding that any new powers be suspended pending review - rather than allowing a secretive security state to keep trampling rights until a poorly-defined consultation process plays out.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Accompanied cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- CBC exposes the galling amnesty deal offered by the Canada Revenue Agency to wealthy individuals who evaded paying tax through a sham offshoring scheme.

- Caelainn Barr and Shiv Malik examine the generational divide which is seeing the income of young adults wither away across most of the developed world. And PressProgress highlights how a higher minimum wage would benefit a large group of workers - including, but not limited to, those younger workers.

- Emma Graney reports on the Saskatchewan Party's cuts to language schools at a time when there's a particularly large need to support newly-arrived residents to Saskatchewan.

- Meanwhile, Chantal Hebert notes that Brad Wall's climate change obstruction is making him look like a dinosaur even compared to other right-wing leaders. And in contrast, Gillian Steward discusses what Rachel Notley was able to accomplish by approaching the federal-provincial climate change meeting with a willingness to listen to other provinces, rather than Wall's strategy of bluster and complaints.

- Finally, the Star makes the case for a national child care program (while recognizing the Trudeau Libs' total lack of interest since they took power):

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has ranked Canada dead last out of 25 states for the quality and accessibility of its child care.

No single move by governments would make such a big difference in the lives of women and families as a comprehensive national plan to provide quality, affordable child care. On the day set aside to mark women’s achievements, and the barriers that keep them from making even more progress, it’s worth remembering that.
...
It’s not just parents who are losing out. A TD Bank study found that for every $1 invested in child care, provincial governments receive $1.50 in increased tax revenues.

And then there’s the cost to the children themselves. Early childhood education reduces inequalities that result from poverty. And it decreases the number of children in special education classes by identifying problems and intervening early. Indeed, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada concluded that the lack of affordable child care was putting the health and well-being of children at risk.

Women and families have been waiting for decades for real progress towards comprehensive national child care. The Trudeau government has pushed forward on many fronts since it took power in early November, but child care isn’t one of them.

On International Women’s Day, especially, the politicians should remember that this remains one of the country’s biggest unmet social needs and resolve to make it a real priority.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Don Pittis rightly notes that there can be a significant difference between an economy trumpeted as growing due to share prices and profits, and one which actually provides benefits to workers - and that the U.S. looks to be making some rare progress on the latter point.

- Sarah Bakewell reports on a new study showing that the headhunters whose work consists of finding and placing corporate executives agree with the view that CEOs are both eminently replaceable and significantly overpaid. But Hamilton Nolan observes that the U.S.' corporate class is trying to increase its own share of the pie by trying to force workers to put in unpaid time. And Bernie Sanders's campaign highlights an extreme example of employer abuses - and the successful public policy response:



- Clare Leschin-Hoar writes about the massive social benefits which could be achieved by making healthy food more affordable.

- Finally, Geoff Leo follows up on the Sask Party's questionable Greater Transportation Hub land deal by reporting that the appraiser responsible for developing the province's valuation considered the sale price to be well out of the ordinary.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Bill McKibben offers his take on the news that the entire northern hemisphere has reached two degrees Celsius above its normal temperature level, including the increased urgency it creates in reining in climate change. And Bruce Johnstone writes about Brad Wall's losing battle to keep promoting the unfettered and unpriced pollution of our atmosphere.

- Matthew Desmond comments on the connection between unaffordable housing and the other stressors resulting from poverty and inequality:

Poor families are stuck. Because they are already at the bottom of the market, they can’t get cheaper housing unless they uproot their lives, quit their jobs and leave the city. Those with eviction records are pushed into substandard private housing in high-crime neighborhoods because many landlords and public housing authorities turn them away. When poor families finally find a new place to rent, they often start off owing their landlord because they simply can’t pay the first and last month’s rent and a security deposit.

When tenants are behind, protections designed to keep housing safe and decent dissolve. Tenants in arrears tempt eviction if they report housing problems. It’s not that low-income renters don’t know their rights. They know that exercising those rights could cost them. So many go on paying most of what they have to live with lead paint, exposed wires and broken plumbing. Saving and stability become wishes, and some days children go hungry because the rent eats first.

...

A universal housing voucher program would fundamentally change the face of poverty in the United States. Evictions would plummet, and so would the other social problems they cause, like family and community instability, homelessness, job loss and depression. Suicides attributed to evictions and foreclosures doubled between 2005 and 2010. A universal housing voucher program would help reverse this disturbing trend.

...

A national affordable housing program would be an anti-poverty effort, human capital investment, community improvement plan and public health initiative all rolled into one. It would especially benefit mothers and children, the face of today’s eviction epidemic.

- But William Greider notes that instead, the U.S. seems set to give away hundreds of billions in revenue through a corporate tax amnesty - even though exactly the same scheme produced none of the promised economic development when tried in 2004.

- Chico Harlan examines Louisiana's example of how right-wing politics in their purest form - including top-heavy tax cuts, corporate giveaways, resource dependency and selloffs and patches intended to avoid any political consequences in the short term - can affect people once somebody recognizes the need to start paying the bills.

- Finally, David Watkins points out how private security firms are pitching their lack of responsibility to comply with constitutional rights as a feature.

On gross excesses

It shouldn't be news to anybody interested in climate change (and the Wall government's role in exacerbating it) that Saskatchewan has a shameful track record in polluting our atmosphere. But Joseph Heath summarizes just how embarrassed we should be:

Keep in mind that the general target we want to get to, globally, is around 2 CO2/tonnes per person. This makes “Canada” seem a long way off. But if you look more carefully, some provinces are a lot closer than others. Quebec is at 9.7 (because of hydro power), and even Ontario is at a not-so-bad 12.5 (and that’s before implementing cap-and-trade, just by abolishing coal). The numbers from Alberta and Saskatchewan though are insane — 64 and 68.8 CO2/tonne per person respectively. (It is worth noting that SK is not the worst offender in absolute terms, it just has a low population compared to Alberta.) This is of course tar sands production (and coal dependence). What’s amazing is that this only counts up the emissions associated with producing synthetic crude. To the extent that the oil subsequently leaves those provinces, the contents of what is in the barrels does not count toward the Alberta and SK emissions totals.

And those numbers are particularly worth highlighting in the wake of Brad Wall's attempt to put off any emission reductions or carbon pricing whatsoever.

Of course, it's silly enough to insist that carbon prices be avoided when oil prices are down, given that they'd both plug some of the government's fiscal hole in the short term, and minimize any disruption to consumers compared to adding extra costs when prices are already high.

But when we put the scope of our emission excesses in the context of the emission level our planet can handle, Wall's position is the equivalent of someone who regularly gorges himself on 34 unhealthy meals a day complaining that he has to put off changing his diet in the slightest. And while he may see short-term and political benefits in saying we should keep pigging out rather than even considering how to get healthier, Saskatchewan's voters might want to insist on making at least some change for the better.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Jackson discusses how large inheritance and accumulated capital lead to gross economic and social distortions:

Inheritances are quite heavily concentrated among the most affluent families and thus compound income and wealth inequality over time.

Inheritances continue to play a significant role in the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the richest Canadians. Forbes Magazine rankings of billionaires show that the ten richest Canadian families include at least four heads of families whose fortunes were at least partly inherited: those of David Thomson, James and Arthur Irving, and Galen Weston.

Wealth, especially financial wealth, is highly concentrated in Canada and produces a significant source of income and economic well-being for the rich which is not earned in the same sense as income from wages and salaries. At a minimum, inequality of financial wealth greatly reinforces inequality of income.

This is hard to justify on the normative grounds used by liberals to justify economic inequality, namely that individual rewards reflect the productive contributions of individuals. Accordingly, it is not “unfair” to consider taxation of inheritances and large accumulations of wealth.

- Leiliani Farha weighs in on the inescapable connection between inequality and homelessness of all types. And PressProgress highlights Derek Fildebrandt's attempt to minimize discussion of any social issues whatsoever.

- Marc Lee offers his take on what happened at the first ministers' meeting on climate change in Vancouver, while John Paul Tasker reports that the federal Libs' plan on making sure carbon pricing is in place regardless of any provincial obstruction. And Joseph Heath explains why Brad Wall's position to the contrary can only be explained by fealty to corporate backers over sound governance:

(W)e all know that the current price of carbon – zero – is too low. You don’t have to know how high it should be to know that $0 is not the correct price. (Actually, in practice it’s less that zero, because of the various ways in which fossil fuel production is subsidized.) So in order to get a properly structured market, and to eliminate the unfair competitive advantage that hydrocarbons enjoy over other energy sources in the current market, one needs to put a price on carbon. What will be the effects of raising the price? Who knows? The beauty of the market is that we don’t have to know. What we do know is that raising the price will improve the allocation of resources and increase welfare.
...
Wall’s support of the “free market” is not the sort of ideological conviction that arises from a sober assessment of the virtues of private enterprise, but more like a set of ideas picked up on the golf course, from hobnobbing with CEOs. It is essentially class politics, not responsible governance.

- Meanwhile, Eric Holthaus points out that at least on a temporary basis, we've already reached the two-degree threshold seen as the point of no return for climate change.

- Finally, CUPW makes the case for postal banking as both an important social service and a source of public revenue.

Musical interlude

Hooverphonic - Mad About You (Orchestra Version)

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Carol Goar writes about the need for Canada's federal government to rethink how we view taxes. And Simon Wren-Lewis tries to explain the resilience of austerian ideology even as it fails every test in the real world.

- Paul Krugman discusses how Donald Trump's greatest sin in the eyes of Republicans is his disruption of their own existing cons, while Matt Phillips interviews Branko Milanovic about the economic disparity behind the rise of Trump among other toxic leaders. And Joel Schlesinger writes about the growing number of younger workers who don't see retirement ever becoming a realistic option.

- Suzanne Goldenberg reports on the U.S.' publicly-funded work into new battery technology which is significantly outpacing private-sector research. And Valentina Ruiz Leotaud discusses the joint effort between the environmental and labour movements to develop a strong, sustainable renewable energy economy.  

- But Chris Hall writes that this week's much-ballyhooed federal-provincial meeting produced far less than promised, as nobody seems to agree on what was actually decided. And Michael Harris notes that the most retrograde of the politicians involved - and particularly Brad Wall - figure only to doom themselves and their provinces to obsolescence in the process.

- Finally, Mark Dance highlights the important role several public institutions have played in securing funding fairness for First Nations even at a time when the Harper Cons were doing everything possible to neuter them.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jim Stanford offers a warning to Australia about Canada's history of gratuitous corporate tax giveaways:

(S)uccessive cuts reduced combined Canadian corporate taxes (including provincial rates, which also fell in several provinces) from near 50 per cent of pre-tax income in the early 1980s, to 26 per cent today. In theory, the resulting boost to profits should have stimulated a strong response in business investment. Unfortunately, hopes for this “jobs and growth” dividend have been repeatedly dashed.

Instead of growing, business spending on fixed capital (machinery, structures, etc.) declined under lower company taxes, by about one full point of GDP since the reforms began. Business innovation spending (one of Mr. Turnbull’s top priorities) fared even worse: business R&D outlays shrank by over one-third as a share of GDP, to a record low of just 0.8 per cent. In fact, over the last decade real business investment performed worse than during any other era in Canada’s postwar history. Several provincial governments have given up waiting for the promised investment boom, and are now increasing company tax rates to help address chronic deficits.
...
One especially painful side-effect of lower company taxes has been the sustained accumulation of liquid assets by Canada’s non-financial businesses. Corporate cash hoarding accelerated dramatically after the turn of the century. Non-financial firms now hold cash and other liquid assets equal to over 30 per cent of GDP. IMF researchers have shown that corporate cash holdings grew faster in Canada than any other G7 economy (and twice as fast as in Australia).

With businesses investing less than they receive in after-tax cash flow, lower taxes only add to the stockpile of idle liquid assets, draining spending power from the economy. In this regard, lower corporate taxes may very well have weakened growth and job-creation, not strengthened it. In any event, Canada’s experience is a sobering reminder to Australian policy-makers: anyone expecting a tax shift to generate a big growth dividend is likely to face chronic disappointment.

- In a similar vein, Marc Lee points out that British Columbia's poorly-designed carbon tax system has fallen short of what's possible on several fronts - particularly in its "revenue neutrality" including corporate tax cuts.

- And Charles Mandel highlights the dangers of Brad Wall's addiction to fossil fuels (which I'd hasten to add includes reliance for the purposes of providing both political funding and provincial revenues).

- Ned Simons reports on Joseph Stiglitz' observation that the UK would be better off taking a step back from trade arrangements which tilt the playing field toward investors at the expense of the public. And Scott Sinclair notes that revisions to Canada's trade deal with Europe fall short of the mark.

- Finally, the Globe and Mail points out that it shouldn't be hard for the federal government to adopt a policy of openness as the Libs so regularly promised.

New column day

Here, on the contrast between Brad Wall's choice to spare no public expense in planning for his own comfort while travelling, and his apparent lack of any forethought in navigating the national political scene.

For further reading...
- The NDP broke the news about Wall's use of "travel scouts" to seek perks and upgrades in advance of his travel to Asia here.
- I've pointed out Wall's extracurricular activies in posts including these. And Susan Wright nicely contrasted Wall's belligerence against Rachel Notley's work building connections to other governments.
- Finally, for the more visually inclined, I'll end with this (with apologies to Paul Dechene):

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.

Someone forgot the United Way update again

Shorter Brad Wall:

I plan to use every means at my disposal to personally veto any national plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But since somebody mentioned pipelines, the idea of a single premier unilaterally vetoing a national project is utterly offensive.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Wiped cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Glen Pearson makes the case for transcending cynicism in our politics, including the choice to stay involved once an election is done. And Ian Welsh reminds us that our definition of property is socially established - meaning that many of the assumptions as to what we can and can't do are subject to change:

The larger we expand the sphere of property, as with intellectual property and the right to patent genetic codes, the more we say “only person X can make decisions about what to do with these resources”.  We had better be damn certain that that one person, or corporation or whoever owns this resource is making at least good decisions, and ideally better decisions than would be made if that resource stayed in the commons, available to be used by many people.

And when we give a very few individuals and corporations the right to control a plurality or majority of our resources, locking out virtually everyone else from real decision-making beyond the anemic level of “consumer” and the neutered level of “voter”, we had best, again, be sure that those few people are making better decisions, for everyone, than would be made if a larger number of people had control over those resources and were making the decisions.
...
Freedom is the ability to choose what you do from meaningful choices.  The choice to work for Oligarch A or Oligarch B is not a meaningful choice.

Maximal property definitions and maximal acceptance of property concentration, deprive most of the population of their freedom. It is that simple.
...
A sane property definition allows people to own what they need to do their work and take care of themselves and any dependents. Larger concentrations of property, meant for big projects, are necessary, but they must not be allowed to balloon in oligarchical control of politics and economy.

And I will suggest to you that this is both a much nicer world to live in and a more vibrant one.  A world in which we are not slaves, but have freedom, will burst with creativity and projects.  A world where ideas can be used by anyone will be a world in flower.

If you want freedom, look hard at property.  The larger the sphere of property and the more it is concentrated, the narrower most people’s world will be.

- But of course, some people are going out of their way to enlarge the power of entrenched capital at the expense of public freedom. On that front, Brent Patterson notes that the Trudeau Libs are going full speed ahead in giving corporations the right to challenge Canadian governments under CETA. And Eric Lipton reports on a U.S. giveaway to Monsanto ensuring that it will never be liable for the public health damage done by its chemicals.

- Emily Badger discusses how precarious housing is both an effect and a cause of poverty. And Michele Biss is the latest to weigh in on the need to address poverty with a rights-based model.

- Finally, Chris Selley writes that electoral reform might prod the Cons to remember the concept of independent thought, rather than looking for somebody to give orders like Stephen Harper did throughout his tenure.

Monday Evening Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Tom Parkin writes about the tendency of far too many Canadian governments to put the wealthy at the front of the line, and leave the rest of us to wait:

(O)ver the past two decades, corporate tax rates have been slashed in half. Canadians were told low corporate taxes would create jobs and increase wages. But the evidence is all around us. Even the IMF now admits trickle-down economics doesn’t work.

But trickle-down economics is great at starving our governments for revenue.

So – want childcare? Sorry, no money. Want transit? You’ll have to wait. Want social housing fixed? Send in a work order. Want health care money? Sorry, can’t.

But – want a tax cut? If you’re affluent you’re in luck – because cutting high earners’ income taxes, stock options taxes and corporate taxes is a priority. Our government will even borrow money to give it to them.
...
The growing power imbalance presents a huge obstacle to unwinding tax unfairness and getting back to Canada-building.

Because it’s a lot easier to set up priority lanes than it is to shut them down. A politician who just wants to chum around with big shots, eat free and get on TV is no threat.

But someone motivated by justice and social progress is a real danger. Any politician with the courage to shut down the priority lanes for special people will come under heavy fire. Well-funded heavy fire.

- Cameron Fenton highlights the gigantic climate change loophole in the Libs' new pipeline review process. And Bob Weber points out that Canada stands to suffer some of the most drastic effects of climate change if we can't massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

- Matthew Campo investigates the impact of privatized liquor retailing on the small Saskatchewan communities which have already seen public stores replaced with private sellers. And Cory Collins discusses the cost of privatizing food services in public institutions.

- Meanwhile, David Cochrane reports on one of the Saskatchewan Party's most ridiculous fiscal choices yet - as due to Brad Wall's choice *not* to repay a federal loan when he had a billion dollars of NDP surplus to work with, Saskatchewan is now having to scrape together loan payments when it can least afford it.

- Finally, Ian Welsh offers up some worthwhile reading on the basic ethics which all too often seem to be lacking in public policy-making.

[Edit: fixed wording as per comments.]

On poor excuses

I've previously discussed why there was little reason to think we'd ever see Brad Wall's government lift a finger to deal with poverty in Saskatchewan. But I must admit I'm amazed at how underwhelming the election-driven "strategy" actually is.

So with that in mind, here's the Shorter Saskatchewan Party Poverty Strategy:

We must do more of the same - only less, and not until later.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Steve Roth discusses how inequality and excessive concentration of wealth result in less growth for everybody - even as the researchers finding that correlation try to report the opposite.

- Meanwhile, Davide Furceri and Prakash Loungani examine how loose financial and capital regulation lead to more severe inequality. And Daniel Tencer reports on Toby Sanger's work documenting Canada's most damaging tax loopholes.

- Brent Patterson highlights a new paper on how corporate control agreements stand in the way of meaningful action to fight climate change. And Tim Radford writes that we may need to take far stronger steps than previously anticipated to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in order to avoid a climate catastrophe, while Justin Fisher comments on the need to view climate issues in terms of justice.

- Finally, Luke Savage offers a noteworthy response to the Manning Centre's recent conference - including this observation on how the Cons' leadership contestants look to be out of touch with the social reality facing young voters:

It occurs to me that each and every one of the prospective candidates for the leadership of the CPC came politically of age at around the same time in the 1980s or early 1990s, i.e. during the ascendency of movement conservatism. Then, its calls for “self-sufficiency”, “personal responsibility”, and “individual liberty” over and against the state had an emotional and spiritual resonance that often transcended lines of gender, race, and class. But the lived experience of today’s young people is quite different from those who consider themselves children of the Reagan revolution.

In an economic context characterized by precarious work, low wages, poor financial security, and the widespread exploitation of young labour by employers (who are often from a different generation) across the workforce, solutions that emphasize personal grist and the imperative of an improved work ethic are unlikely to be well-received.

Looking south, it is quite the opposite: Young people appear drawn in much greater measure to Bernie Sanders’ message, and its various attacks on oppressive economic structures, than to movement conservatism’s pickled ethos of “individual liberty” or its various ideological stepchildren (including the Clintonite variant).

Movement conservatism may have dominated the past three decades. But everything I’ve observed this weekend suggests the possibility that something very different may come to dominate the near future.

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.

On failed obstruction

I've written several times before that any federal climate change plan was doomed to fail if it allowed Brad Wall a veto over any emission reductions.

Well, it appears the Trudeau Libs have finally come to terms with that reality, indicating their intention to set national standards if it's not possible to reach agreement with the provinces. And Wall can hardly complain about the predictable result of his stubbornness - particularly when he's continuing it by declaring his refusal to sign on to any climate action whatsoever.

After all, a premier whose government obstinately refuses to engage in any good-faith discussion about a national priority can't reasonably be surprised when the federal government decides to move ahead without him. And what's more, he can't expect to have the input we'd otherwise want in shaping a plan which he intends to obstruct at every turn.

So the end result of Wall's decision to plant himself athwart provincial consultation yelling "stop" is merely to ensure that Saskatchewan has less say than it should in the outcome. And while it's for the best from a policy perspective that the Libs are moving ahead without Wall, Saskatchewan voters should look to their current premier for the answer as to why we won't have a meaningful place at the table in shaping the federal plan.

Musical interlude

Gusgus - Over

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Sean McElwee examines how the wealthy control the U.S.' political system, while public opinion plays far too little role in policy choices:

A comprehensive study by Grossmann finds that public opinion was a significant factor in 25 percent of policy changes since 1945. More influential factors have included interest groups (49 percent) and presidents exercising political capital (60 percent).

Why? First, public opinion is volatile, particularly among low-income people. While the rich are consistently in support and the middle class consistently opposed, the lowest decile fluctuates between support and opposition. As political scientist Chris Tausanovitch notes, “Although the preferences of higher income constituents account for more of the variation in legislator voting behavior, higher income constituents also account for much more of the variation in district preferences.” In other words, because low-income Americans have less clearly defined preferences, their opinions vary less, so politicians may be less likely to respond to them.

Political scientists Joseph Daniel Ura and Christopher Ellis argue that less-educated individuals, who are disproportionately low-income, are less likely to align their preferences about government size with class interest. This suggests that higher income opinion is more clearly defined.

Second, the decline of labor unions makes it difficult for low-income Americans to accurately identify and lobby for policies that are in their interest. In a recent study, political scientists Torben Iversen and David Soskice show that low-income people with little political information and who aren’t union members are more likely to support a right-wing party than those who are members of a union and high political information. Their work lines up with that of Anthony Fowler and Michele Margolis, who find that informing people about Republican and Democratic policies using objective information leads them to shift toward supporting Democrats.
 ...
(P)olicy is biased toward the rich. Diagnosing how this bias occurs is the key to prescribing remedies. It’s clear that lack of effective mobilization — in terms of voting and other political activities — is at the core of disproportionate representation. The overwhelming power of the donor class further hampers equal representation.

There are many possible solutions. Automatic voter registration would reduce barriers to participation in election. This step is being implemented in Oregon, which has already added 10,000 voters since the beginning of the year. Other states are likely to follow. Stronger unions would be able to push more successfully for policies that benefit the working and middle class. Finally, public financing of elections would create a more diverse pool of donors.

All of these policies are favored by majorities of Americans. The problem is that this might not matter.

- PressProgress takes a look at Canadian public opinion on the lack of opportunities for young workers. And Manisha Krishnan debunks an attempt to paper over the difficulties facing the vast majority of young Canadians by tying them to "average" wealth held by a lucky few.

- Helen Ward discusses research showing that children from poor families in the UK are far more likely to have special needs - and less likely to receive any support for them when they arise.

- Roderick Benns notes that among the many reasons for concern among Ontario's provincial budget, there's some upside in the plan for a basic income pilot program.

- Finally, Neil Macdonald highlights how the Trudeau Libs' "sunny" marketing gives way to something much darker in practice.

[Edit: fixed title.]

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Alison Griswold points out how little systemic information we have about the growing gig economy. And both Scott Santens and Richard Reeves make the case for a basic income to provide financial security where an increasingly precarious labour market won't.

- Meanwhile, Branko Milanovic argues that we may be approaching a reversal of the trend toward inequality - but that if we don't get there through peaceful politics, it may take a major shock like wide-scale war:

The pro-inequality trends will be very hard to overturn during the next generation, but eventually they may be – through a combination of political change, pro-unskilled labour technological innovations (which will become more profitable as skilled labour’s price increases), dissipation of rents acquired during the current bout of technological efflorescence, and possibly greater attempts to equalise ownership of assets (through forms of ‘people’s capitalism’ and workers’ shareholding).  

Now, these are of course the benign factors that, I think, will ultimately set inequality in rich countries on its downward path. But history teaches us too that there are malign factors, notably wars, in turn caused by domestic maldistribution of income and power of the elites (as was the case in the World War I), that can also do the job of income levelling. But they do it at the cost of millions of human lives. One can hope that we have learned something from history and would avoid this destructive path to equality in poverty and death.

- PressProgress highlights the Libs' plans to break their promise to close a stock option loophole. And Steven Chase and Robert Fife report on the compelling evidence that any armoured vehicles Canada sells to Saudi Arabia - with the Libs' approval - will be used to attack civilian targets.

- Brent Patterson summarizes a new paper on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership could limit Canada's ability to preserve and manage its fresh water. And Marc Jaccard writes that a full plan to deal with environmental issues such as climate change needs to include regulation alongside "market" solutions.

- Finally, Simon Enoch exposes the Saskatchewan Party's complete failure to do their homework on the costs of privatizing liquor retailing.

New column day

Here, on Brad Wall's preference for unethical oil over sustainable development.

For further reading...
- Again, Shawn McCarthy reported here on Wall's new declaration that he won't accept carbon pricing or regulation of any kind. And CBC reported here on his desire for federal stimulus dollars to go toward shuttering and cleaning up oil wells (and thereby taking their former operators off the hook).
- Tracy Johnson reports on the recent declaration by Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Naimi that the world's cheapest producers will be keeping the taps open rather than cutting down production to boost prices. And Yadullah Hussein follows up by pointing out the resulting plunge in oil prices.
- Finally, Paul Hanley rightly raises the point that we should be lessening our reliance on the oil sector in general.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ian Welsh discusses the attitude of meanness underlying so much of the U.S.' political and cultural scene.

- Ryan Meili and Adrienne Silnicki write about the dangers of relying on paid plasma donations. And Alexa Huffman and Whitney Stinson report that the Sask Party's obsession with cutting public services has pushed Regina's hospital system beyond its capacity.

- On the bright side, Carol Goar observes that the Cons' lack of compassion toward refugees led some in the medical profession to take on a more activist role than they'd done previously - which could produce lasting benefits even as the Harper cuts are reversed. But Catherine Rolfsen notes that there's still a long way to go in meeting the needs of the new refugees arriving in Canada.

- Debra McAuslan talks to Roderick Benns about the social benefits of a basic income. And Teuila Fuatai points out that employers can benefit significantly from a living wage.

- Finally, Peter Zimonjoc reports on some of the "disruption" CSIS has already started to engage in since Bill C-51 was passed. And Ian MacLeod highlights a decade of illegal sharing of metadata by the Communications Security Establishment - which we should see as an entirely expected outcome when a secretive security apparatus has substantial power and no effective accountability.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats amidst chaos.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Elaine Power discusses how a basic income can build both individual security and social solidarity:

We work for lots of different reasons, not just money. And most of us do work that is never paid. To start, we need to change our ideas about work, not just counting the activities that get paid. For many of us, the most meaningful activities in our lives are unpaid. Maybe more of us would chose to spend our time doing those more meaningful activities when a basic income is implemented. But a basic income is never going to provide a luxurious standard of living. Most people would chose to have paid employment for all its benefits, including monetary benefits, to have a better standard of living.

Moreover, I think a basic income could help us shift the ethos of our times, which is about grabbing as much as we can for ourselves without regard for others or for the common good. I think we rise (or descend) to the expectations put upon us. If we set up expectations that everyone has something to contribute to the common good, even simple contributions like picking up garbage by the side of the road, I think ordinary people would rise to these expectations. While there has been much fear-mongering and divisiveness in recent political discourse, our new federal government seems intent to appeal to the “better angels of our nature.” I think a basic income could reinforce this and encourage us all to do the work that we are able to do to make the world a better place.
...
Basic income would help us rebuild a sense of social solidarity and enable us to collectively reimagine how to live together, more sustainably, on the planet.

I think a basic income will lessen the depression, anxiety and other forms of mental illness that our insecure, unstable and competitive world induces. It will help enable us to draw out the best of ourselves and each other. I hope we will become a more compassionate, caring and just society. It will take more than 10 or 20 years but basic income is essential to creating “the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible.”

- Meanwhile, the Social Planning and Research Council discusses (PDF) the connection between precarious work and predatory payday lending. But in case anybody was expecting a change in federal government to change any priorities between the lucky few at the top of the corporate pyramid and the rest of us, James Bagnall reports that the Libs are breaking their promise to close the executive stock option loophole.

- Leonid Bershidsky points out that Bernie Sanders' platform - which is being treated as radical in the U.S. - would fit comfortably within the centre-right portion of the political spectrum in most of the developed world. And Robert Reich writes that it's thus not too surprising that American voters are sick of an establishment which hasn't taken the public interest into account in divvying up the spoils of economic development.

- Seth Klein and Armine Yalnizyan offer an example of what a serious plan to fight poverty would look like.

- Finally, Alex Boutillier reports on one more way C-51 is establishing an unaccountable and pervasive surveillance state, as the Communications Security Establishment is now able to engage in hacking and other "disruption" on behalf of CSIS.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Miles Corak argues for a "second-chance" society to make up for the damaging effects of inequality - though I'd argue that while he has the principle exactly right, it's worth defining it as "no person left behind" to avoid any suggestion that people have a limited number of chances:

Canadians need to build a “second chance” society so that the consequences of bad luck or bad choices don’t matter as much.

There is a whole host of ways our social programs built up in an era of stable and steady job growth need to be refitted for a polarized labour market hard-wired to generate inequalities. We don’t just need unemployment insurance, as much as we need “wage” insurance that will top up the earnings of someone with a long work history who is laid-off and forced to take a lower paying job.

We don’t just need quality education, but also full tuition relief through income-contingent loans that tailor repayments and forgiveness to a graduate’s income. Rather than strapping them to low paying jobs to pay-off debts, they need to be given the room to drop back into school to get a different diploma or degree.

We don’t just need infrastructure as make-work or to maintain our bridges, roads, and sewers, but also as social infrastructure to enhance all of our lives, regardless of our incomes: transportation networks that work, housing, neighbourhoods, and parks that buck the market tendency to segregate and separate.

But the final ingredient of Canada’s success needs to be nurtured no less than the twins of social investment and social insurance. That, of course, is a sense of identity that values and even fosters diversity, where newcomers not only “integrate” but the mainstream also bends, adapts, and redefines itself. A broad sense of citizenship, and a culture of community and sharing are all the more important now in an era of inequality.

Ultimately the most corrosive dimension of inequality is that it feeds a sense of entitlement among the lucky, and a sense of shame among the unlucky, and this perverts our long run capacity to collectively invest, support, and care for ourselves and our children. This is the deepest foundation of social mobility in Canada, and something that we should continue to celebrate and value, but also something that we need to continue to nurture.

- Meanwhile, Leah Askarinam writes about the positive results when low-income parents are able to go back to school.

- Mitchell Anderson argues that we should treat real estate as a public resource, while Rob Carrick writes that the promise of homeownership as a source of economic security has proven false for far too many Canadians. And on that front, Luke Kawa reports on Canada's soaring private debt - which is particularly stark in comparison to the U.S. in light of its well-documented real estate bubbles.

- Finally, Citizens for Public Justice offers its suggestions for the federal budget - with a strong focus on both reducing poverty, and tackling climate change. And Jacqueline Howard points out that Canada's Prairies represent one of the regions which stands to be affected most as our climate changes.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- The Star-Phoenix duly calls out the Wall government's short-sighted slashing of funding for homeless shelters:

Regardless of how the government frames the changes, access to services is being denied to some of the most vulnerable people in the communities of Saskatoon and North Battleford.

And the government is saving money or aims to save money in the long run. This is short-sighted.

Taking away essential services only shifts the costs. The provincial government may be saving money, but the municipalities funding police may find their resources strained.

Studies have proven that housing the homeless can be far cheaper than leaving them on the streets and letting police and other emergency services deal with them. Offloading the cost and deflecting the criticism offers the attraction of making the province’s books look slightly better while sticking to the perception no cuts are being made.
...
Social Services officials need to realize their tightening of rules has really ripped holes in the social safety net and is allowing the most vulnerable to slip through. It will cost us all more in the long run.

[Update: And Cathie points out how the decision fits into the Saskatchewan Party's usual modus operandi.]

- Meanwhile, CBC reports on the federal government's refusal to fund medically necessary services for First Nations patients.

- Paul Willcocks reviews how the Christy Clark Libs' budget is designed to exacerbate inequality. And the Vancouver Sun is particularly critical of a rapidly-growing health care premium.

- Aleksandra Sagan highlights how increasing food prices are putting ever more pressure on lower-income households.

- Kelsey Johnston reports on the Libs' decision to abandon the Canadian Wheat Board or anything remotely resembling it. And PressProgress charts how farmers are suffering as a result of the ill-advised choice with the Libs are seemingly backing.

- Finally, Monia Mazigh looks at the Canadian Border Services Agency's extended detention of asylum seekers as an example of what happens when a state security apparatus lacks both a clearly-defined purpose and any meaningful accountability.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Sarah Anderson, Marc Bayard, John Cavanagh, Chuck Collins, Josh Hoxie and Sam Pizzigati offer an outline as to how to fight back against growing inequality:

§ We need to see inequality as a deep systemic problem. Piecemeal interventions have not helped slow or reverse the pace of wealth concentration. We’ve now hit inequality warp speed. Inequality grew steadily between the 1970s and the early years of the 21st century, with the rules that govern our economy encouraging both wage stagnation and wealth updraft. But since the economic meltdown of 2008, even larger swaths of income and wealth gains have flowed to the top 1 percent.

§ We need to concentrate more on wealth concentration. Most of our national discourse on fighting inequality has involved income inequality. But the even deeper problem involves the maldistribution of our national and global wealth. We need to address both wage and asset inequality.

§ We need to go beyond “good government” reforms. Real democracy can never flourish alongside massive personal and business fortunes. As long as wealthy individuals and giant corporations can buy elections and dictate policy, we will never reverse extreme inequality.
...
§ Most of all, we need game changers. If you’re playing in a game where the rules turn out to be rigged, you need to change the game.

- Andrew Jackson makes the case for fiscal policy to promote growth (rather than to slash public activity). And Sean McElwee points out that at least in the U.S., there's no need to be shy about discussing austerity, as one of the major fault lines within the Republican Party is between an upper class which endorses it and the broader base which knows better.

- Meanwhile, Canadians for Tax Fairness proposes a set of relatively simple changes which could result in a far more progressive tax system, along with a healthy boost in public revenue. And Forum finds growing public support for a basic income as one obvious destination for an increase in tax revenue.

- The Cape Breton Post writes about the desperate need for a stronger system of retirement security. And Lana Payne is optimistic that we'll see an improved Canada Pension Plan before too long.

- Finally, the Council of Canadians offers its support to the idea of postal banking.

Shocked, I say

Surely nobody could have predicted that a federal climate change plan of doing no more than every province would accept would be doomed as long as Brad Wall has anything to say about it.

But if there's a silver lining, it's this: the fact that Wall is actually attacking the idea of a "level playing field" in order to stand out as an oil industry shill and climate laggard may go some ways in ensuring there's a more responsible party leading Saskatchewan by the time the Libs figure out what they're doing.

Musical interlude

Grimes feat. Blood Diamonds - Go

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Larry Elliott writes that the OECD is calling on its member states - including Canada - to stop pushing destructive austerity and instead focus on needed public investments.

- Ian Welsh points out the problems with monetary policy aimed solely at inflation rather than growth (and designed to undercut any wage gains). And Duncan Cameron notes that the Bank of Canada's mandate is even more skewed toward the wealthy at the expense of workers.

- Serina Sandhu reports on a UK court ruling pushing back against cuts to funding for individuals who have faced domestic violence.

- And Elana Lamesse comments on the false economies involved in slashing the supports needed for inmates to reintegrate after being released from jail.

- Finally, Owen Jones discusses the anti-democratic nature of the U.K. Cons' ban on boycotts. And both the Cons and Libs are pushing the same authoritarian line in attacking boycotts and divestment on the part of Canadians.