In the federal NDP's previous leadership campaign, Tom Mulcair managed to release numerous policy proposals without offering any hint of what he'd do as leader.
Starting from the (correct) assumption that a frontrunner could likely find his way to victory simply by minimizing controversy, Mulcair released policy planks which were based almost entirely on the NDP's previous election platform.
That left little for his opponents to criticize: any direct questions about Mulcair's plans could be attacked as critiques of Jack Layton's judgment. But it also offered little information for voters who genuinely wanted to know about Mulcair's own judgment and priorities.
This time around, there was some question as to whether Jagmeet Singh would similarly try to neutralize policy as a basis for decision rather than offering any distinctive vision. But to Singh's credit, he's making a strong effort to drive policy debate both within the NDP and in the broader political scene - most recently by releasing an income security agenda built around three guarantees.
But if Singh's latest proposal offers a valuable basis for discussion and debate, it also highlights the distinction between Singh's plans and the more ambitious ones on offer in the leadership campaign.
In particular, Singh's plans fall well short of Guy Caron's in two key ways.
First, Singh's limited guarantees leave open the implied statement that many people don't deserve a secure living, including for reasons beyond their control.
It's fair to say that nobody working full-time should live in poverty, nor any senior or person living with a disability. And Singh's plan addresses those specific circumstances.
But Caron has already offered up the much stronger - yet to my mind, also more defensible - statement that nobody should live in poverty.
In effect, Singh's plan makes the debate about poverty one which seeks to redraw the lines as to who receives support - while relying on an underlying assumption that some people aren't deserving of income security. That figures only to help other parties looking to persuade voters that income supports shouldn't be extended at all, while also offering reason for hope to far less people than Caron's.
And even if one assumed it's better to leave some out-group on the wrong side of an anti-poverty policy, it's far from clear that Singh has drawn the line in the right place.
In particular, a wage tax benefit wouldn't seem to offer support to people who can't find traditional work due to economic or personal circumstances - meaning that the people most excluded from work opportunities might continue to be left out.
Second, Singh plans to roll more of the existing social safety net into his plan, leaving less additional supports available where they're needed based on individual circumstances.
While Caron's plan would overtake only the Guaranteed Income Supplement among existing seniors' supports, Singh's would usurp the place of several more. And Singh also explicitly plans to roll the existing Working Income Tax Benefit into his plan.
Lest there be any doubt, Singh's combined plan for improved income supports would still make for a major improvement on the status quo. And it's for the best that he's managing to get the media talking about egalitarian messages even if his policy doesn't fully give effect to them.
But it also does reflect some meaningful differences in principle and policy compared to what other candidates have put forward. And Singh will need to justify his more limited proposals in order to win over voters looking for a leader who can win on principle.
Those who defend power tend to screech the loudest when power is genuinely threatened.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
On comparative advantages
Labels:
basic income,
guy caron,
jagmeet singh,
leadership 2017,
poverty,
strategy,
thomas mulcair
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- David MacDonald discusses the need to start tackling some of Canada's most expensive and least justifiable tax handouts to the rich:
- Kathy Tomlinson exposes the widespread double-billing practices which make Canada's health care system far less universal than it's supposed to be. And Theresa Boyle reports on how medical care is influenced by secret payments from the big pharma to Canada's doctors.
- Ian Mulgrew points out that anti-SLAPP legislation is just one of the progressive steps forward British Columbia can expect once a Green-supported NDP government has a chance to get to work.
- Finally, Alex Boutilier reports on CSIS' illegal retention of all the metadata about people not under investigation which it collected without authority for a period of a decade.
- David MacDonald discusses the need to start tackling some of Canada's most expensive and least justifiable tax handouts to the rich:
The richest 10 per cent of Canadians enjoy an average of $20,500 a year in tax exemptions, credits, and other loopholes. That’s $6,000 more than in 1992 and it costs the federal government $58 billion—double what it paid in tax expenditures in 1992.- Meanwhile, Benjamin Locke points out that Donald Trump's plan to favour the rich over the public includes his refusal to sign on to international efforts to combat tax evasion.
The cost to the federal government for all preferential personal income tax treatments, not just for the rich, has ballooned from $90 billion in 1992 to a projected $152 billion in 2018. That’s a 69 per cent cost increase since 1992.
...
This is about taking a clear-eyed look at how Ottawa has been prioritizing tax expenditures that disproportionately benefit a few at the expense of the many.
Meanwhile, government after government puts off making proper investments to ensure clean water and decent housing on Aboriginal reserves as well as delaying bold action on poverty reduction and homelessness.
In some Canadian cities, some working families are paying the equivalent of a second monthly mortgage just to get their children in child care.
Millennials are being asked to pay record-high tuition in order to get a university degree, only to graduate with record-high student debt and limited work opportunities.
The case for closing tax loopholes, shutting down tax credits and exemptions tilted heavily in favour of the rich and corporate Canada is really about diverting that money to pay for programs and services that benefit everyone—even the rich and corporations, because they benefit from a healthy, well-functioning society.
- Kathy Tomlinson exposes the widespread double-billing practices which make Canada's health care system far less universal than it's supposed to be. And Theresa Boyle reports on how medical care is influenced by secret payments from the big pharma to Canada's doctors.
- Ian Mulgrew points out that anti-SLAPP legislation is just one of the progressive steps forward British Columbia can expect once a Green-supported NDP government has a chance to get to work.
- Finally, Alex Boutilier reports on CSIS' illegal retention of all the metadata about people not under investigation which it collected without authority for a period of a decade.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
On selective sacrifice
Brad Wall's definition of shared sacrifice:
Public service workers are expected to do their jobs plus more to cover for a hiring freeze, while also getting hit with a 3.5% pay cut.
At the same time, specially-selected Saskatchewan Party MLAs get handed new titles without any accompanying work, plus $3,000 free to go with it.
Somehow this looks familiar as Wall's corporate cronies take large tax breaks while people are asked to pay more. And in both cases, there's every reason for the public to put an end to the one-sided demands.
Public service workers are expected to do their jobs plus more to cover for a hiring freeze, while also getting hit with a 3.5% pay cut.
At the same time, specially-selected Saskatchewan Party MLAs get handed new titles without any accompanying work, plus $3,000 free to go with it.
Somehow this looks familiar as Wall's corporate cronies take large tax breaks while people are asked to pay more. And in both cases, there's every reason for the public to put an end to the one-sided demands.
Labels:
austerity,
brad wall,
patronage,
public services,
sask party
Saturday Afternoon Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Larry Elliott is optimistic that the UK's election result will lead to an end of destructive austerity. James Downie comments on the example Jeremy Corbyn's campaign provides for progressives in the U.S. (and elsewhere). And Karl Nerenberg writes about the importance of youth turnout in boosting Labour's fortunes.
- But Polly Toynbee offers a reminder as to how a first-past-the-post electoral system prevents voters' interests from translating fully into government decision-making.
- Gareth Hutchins reports on a new study showing that in Australia like in many other countries, any economic growth has been more than skimmed off the top by a well-connected few. And Jordan Brennan offers this chart on the similar effect in Ontario:
- Lana Payne discusses how a $15 minimum wage (and a living wage generally) would change workers' lives for the better. Meagan Gilmore highlights how unions are leading the way in pursuing domestic violence leave to ensure that work demands don't trap people in abusive relationships. And Nora Loreto points out the importance of building social movements in order bring about political change.
- Finally, Ed Finn writes that the business lobby's knee-jerk anti-government position misses the vital role of a strong public sector in building a functional economy and society:
- Larry Elliott is optimistic that the UK's election result will lead to an end of destructive austerity. James Downie comments on the example Jeremy Corbyn's campaign provides for progressives in the U.S. (and elsewhere). And Karl Nerenberg writes about the importance of youth turnout in boosting Labour's fortunes.
- But Polly Toynbee offers a reminder as to how a first-past-the-post electoral system prevents voters' interests from translating fully into government decision-making.
- Gareth Hutchins reports on a new study showing that in Australia like in many other countries, any economic growth has been more than skimmed off the top by a well-connected few. And Jordan Brennan offers this chart on the similar effect in Ontario:
- Lana Payne discusses how a $15 minimum wage (and a living wage generally) would change workers' lives for the better. Meagan Gilmore highlights how unions are leading the way in pursuing domestic violence leave to ensure that work demands don't trap people in abusive relationships. And Nora Loreto points out the importance of building social movements in order bring about political change.
- Finally, Ed Finn writes that the business lobby's knee-jerk anti-government position misses the vital role of a strong public sector in building a functional economy and society:
The public and private sectors have become so interdependent that one cannot be attacked or diminished without hurting the other. Public expenditures often stimulate private sector activities. Many industries could not get started or keep going without government services and infrastructure. And of course governments need a robust economy to boost employment and generate the revenue they need to provide social services.
Public funds spent on making workers healthier and better educated provide the private sector with a more efficient work force. Public funds spent on roads, airports, and other utilities are essential to the operation of private industry.
...
That's the absurdity of the neoliberal assault on the public sector. Somehow more private industrial development is supposed to flow from less public education and research. More private X-ray machines, MRIs, and other hardware is supposed to be made for fewer public hospitals. More private cars and trucks are supposed to be driven on fewer public highways. A smaller public police force is supposed to guard larger private fortunes.
What is more likely to happen -- and what in fact has happened in recent years -- is that restraints on growth in the public sector cause overall national production to be slowed down, rather than causing a shift in growth from the public to the private sector.
You would think that, by this time, our political leaders would realize just how illogical, inequitable, and impracticable this self-defeating business dogma really is. Instead, they submissively continue to aid and abet the corporate kingpins in their deranged attacks on the public sector and public employees.
As long as this ignorance of public and private sector interdependence prevails, so will the cancers of social and economic deprivation, inequality, poverty, deregulation, privatization, crumbling infrastructure, and environmental degradation.
Friday, June 09, 2017
Musical interlude
CHVRCHES - Now is Not The Time
Labels:
music blogging
Friday Afternoon Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Owen Jones writes that UK Labour's bold and progressive platform was crucial to its improved electoral results. Bhaksar Sunkara rightly sees Labour's campaign - in both its firm defence of the common good, and its determination to reach young and marginalized voters rather than assuming they won't turn out - as a blueprint to be copied elsewhere. And Charlie Smith suggests that the federal NDP in particular should look to follow in Labour's footsteps.
- Daniel Tencer reports on Evelyn Forget's estimate of the cost of a basic income at a reasonable $15 billion per year nationally. And Rosana Salvaterra writes about the health benefits of a stable and secure income for everybody. But Jared Knoll interviews Armine Yalnizyan about the opportunity costs of a basic income as opposed to other policy options aimed at equalizing access to actual goods and services, rather than income alone.
- Meanwhile, Donald Hirsch discusses the reemergence of living wage as a widely recognized policy goal. And Michael McKnight highlights the value of Vancouver's living wage as a step toward reducing poverty and inequality.
- Bernie Sanders offers a look (PDF) at how Donald Trump's privatized infrastructure plan figures to enrich Wall Street at the expense of the American public. And Pedro Nicolaci da Costa reports that many other U.S. Democrats are offering the same necessary critique - signalling that the Justin Trudeau Libs' copycat Canadian version is taking them far past the level of corporatism of a party which is itself subject to valid criticism as driven too much by appeasing the financial sector.
- Finally, Andrew Nikiforuk laments Trudeau's decision to facilitate years of avoidable methane pollution.
- Owen Jones writes that UK Labour's bold and progressive platform was crucial to its improved electoral results. Bhaksar Sunkara rightly sees Labour's campaign - in both its firm defence of the common good, and its determination to reach young and marginalized voters rather than assuming they won't turn out - as a blueprint to be copied elsewhere. And Charlie Smith suggests that the federal NDP in particular should look to follow in Labour's footsteps.
- Daniel Tencer reports on Evelyn Forget's estimate of the cost of a basic income at a reasonable $15 billion per year nationally. And Rosana Salvaterra writes about the health benefits of a stable and secure income for everybody. But Jared Knoll interviews Armine Yalnizyan about the opportunity costs of a basic income as opposed to other policy options aimed at equalizing access to actual goods and services, rather than income alone.
- Meanwhile, Donald Hirsch discusses the reemergence of living wage as a widely recognized policy goal. And Michael McKnight highlights the value of Vancouver's living wage as a step toward reducing poverty and inequality.
- Bernie Sanders offers a look (PDF) at how Donald Trump's privatized infrastructure plan figures to enrich Wall Street at the expense of the American public. And Pedro Nicolaci da Costa reports that many other U.S. Democrats are offering the same necessary critique - signalling that the Justin Trudeau Libs' copycat Canadian version is taking them far past the level of corporatism of a party which is itself subject to valid criticism as driven too much by appeasing the financial sector.
- Finally, Andrew Nikiforuk laments Trudeau's decision to facilitate years of avoidable methane pollution.
Thursday, June 08, 2017
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Christopher Hoy reminds us that as much as people are already outraged by inequality, we tend to underestimate its severity. And Faiza Shaheen writes about the dangers of unchecked inequality which erodes social bonds.
- Meanwhile, Andrea Hopkins discusses how Canadians are taking significant financial risks in borrowing against home values in order to paper over a continued lack of wage gains.
- Daniel Leblanc and Steven Chase report on the Libs' plans to burn tens of billions of dollars on military equipment in the name of "hard power". And Marie-Danielle Smith reports on Justin Trudeau's preference to leave nuclear threats in place rather than lifting a finger toward disarmament.
- But Chase and Robert Fife note that even as they try to push an every-country-for-itself defence policy, the Libs are simultaneously greasing the skids for Chinese capital to take over a sensitive satellite communication network.
- Julie Know reports on the provincial auditor's criticism of the Saskatchewan Party's continued refusal to regulate pipelines. And D.C. Fraser points out that privatized health services predictably haven't led to any promised reduction in wait times.
- Finally, Julia Belluz comments on the unfairness of fee-for-service medicine, with a particular focus on price gouging in U.S. emergency rooms.
- Christopher Hoy reminds us that as much as people are already outraged by inequality, we tend to underestimate its severity. And Faiza Shaheen writes about the dangers of unchecked inequality which erodes social bonds.
- Meanwhile, Andrea Hopkins discusses how Canadians are taking significant financial risks in borrowing against home values in order to paper over a continued lack of wage gains.
- Daniel Leblanc and Steven Chase report on the Libs' plans to burn tens of billions of dollars on military equipment in the name of "hard power". And Marie-Danielle Smith reports on Justin Trudeau's preference to leave nuclear threats in place rather than lifting a finger toward disarmament.
- But Chase and Robert Fife note that even as they try to push an every-country-for-itself defence policy, the Libs are simultaneously greasing the skids for Chinese capital to take over a sensitive satellite communication network.
- Julie Know reports on the provincial auditor's criticism of the Saskatchewan Party's continued refusal to regulate pipelines. And D.C. Fraser points out that privatized health services predictably haven't led to any promised reduction in wait times.
- Finally, Julia Belluz comments on the unfairness of fee-for-service medicine, with a particular focus on price gouging in U.S. emergency rooms.
New column day
Here, on how the UK's general election should remind us that we're not beholden to establishment voices (whether in the media or within a party) in deciding who's fit to lead us.
For further reading...
- I've already pointed out John Harris and Gary Younge have written about the rise of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, along with Michal Rozworski's take on the prospect of meaningfully democratizing an economy.
- Joseph Stiglitz argues that Labour's most important promise is to put an end to decades of destructive austerity.
- And finally, George Monbiot writes that Corbyn has offered the type of hope which he and other voters have never seen before.
For further reading...
- I've already pointed out John Harris and Gary Younge have written about the rise of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, along with Michal Rozworski's take on the prospect of meaningfully democratizing an economy.
- Joseph Stiglitz argues that Labour's most important promise is to put an end to decades of destructive austerity.
- And finally, George Monbiot writes that Corbyn has offered the type of hope which he and other voters have never seen before.
Labels:
columns,
jeremy corbyn,
leadership,
theresa may,
uk 2017,
uk labour
Wednesday, June 07, 2017
Leadership 2017 Links
The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign...
- Charlie Angus has made his pitch for a national pharmacare program as one way of reducing health care inequality.
- Guy Caron's proposal for tax reform features plenty of progressive ideas to bring in more public revenue, including through inheritance and wealth taxes. And his subsequent announcement that electoral reform will be his top priority in the next Parliament offers some needed hope for progressives who have seen the Libs break their promise yet again.
- Niki Ashton's announcement that she's expecting has attracted plenty of attention - but it's particularly worth noting (as Monique Scotti does) how it highlights the need for more parent-friendly systems both in our political system and in general.
- Jagmeet Singh's first policy proposal focuses on more fair treatment for workers under federal jurisdiction. (And yes, Kevin Milligan, they exist.)
- Jeremy Nuttall interviews Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury about his campaign so far.
- Finally, Murray Dobbin characterizes the difference between Singh and Niki Ashton as being a clash between style and substance - though Singh seems to be working on eliminating any gap on the latter point. Rick Salutin suggests that the NDP should be looking to Bernie Sanders as an example of left populism, while seeing Angus as the best candidate on that front. And Tom Parkin examines some of the challenges and opportunities the NDP faces in Quebec.
- Charlie Angus has made his pitch for a national pharmacare program as one way of reducing health care inequality.
- Guy Caron's proposal for tax reform features plenty of progressive ideas to bring in more public revenue, including through inheritance and wealth taxes. And his subsequent announcement that electoral reform will be his top priority in the next Parliament offers some needed hope for progressives who have seen the Libs break their promise yet again.
- Niki Ashton's announcement that she's expecting has attracted plenty of attention - but it's particularly worth noting (as Monique Scotti does) how it highlights the need for more parent-friendly systems both in our political system and in general.
- Jagmeet Singh's first policy proposal focuses on more fair treatment for workers under federal jurisdiction. (And yes, Kevin Milligan, they exist.)
- Jeremy Nuttall interviews Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury about his campaign so far.
- Finally, Murray Dobbin characterizes the difference between Singh and Niki Ashton as being a clash between style and substance - though Singh seems to be working on eliminating any gap on the latter point. Rick Salutin suggests that the NDP should be looking to Bernie Sanders as an example of left populism, while seeing Angus as the best candidate on that front. And Tom Parkin examines some of the challenges and opportunities the NDP faces in Quebec.
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Dennis Howlett comments on the distortions in Canada's tax system which redistribute money upward to those who need it least:
- Norman Farrell comments on the scandal that is the B.C. Libs' use of power contracts to systematically enrich donors at public expense. And Chrystia Freeland's announcement that the federal Libs will be delivering billions to the military-industrial complex after breaking promises of social investment signals that Justin Trudeau too is focused mostly on further entrenching existing wealth.
- Peter Prontzos reviews Keith Payne's The Broken Ladder as a useful discussion of the relationship between economic inequality and social problems. And Andre Picard comments on Canada's continued failure to provide anything approaching a reasonable standard of living and health to Indigenous children.
- Finally, Stephen Tweedale sets out the case as to why Christy Clark shouldn't be able to force British Columbia into another election after the one which elected a majority of MLAs for change. And David Climenhaga reveals how the Wildrose Party is telling its members they can ignore political financing laws based on a plan to change them retroactively for partisan benefit.
- Dennis Howlett comments on the distortions in Canada's tax system which redistribute money upward to those who need it least:
It’s time for Mr. Morneau to deliver a comprehensive and comprehensible tax strategy that will work in 2017 and beyond because, currently, tax breaks for the richest 10 per cent amount to almost $58 billion.- Meanwhile, Richard Shillington and Robin Shaban offer the strongest critique yet of the Fraser Institute's torqued "tax freedom day" spin, while also noting that our tax rates are already on the low end within the OECD. And PressProgress wonders whether Canada's media will finally apply at least some scrutiny to anti-tax spin rather than reproducing it uncritically.
That includes the nearly $1 billion a year lost to the stock option loophole that Liberals promised — and failed — to ditch after pressure from CEOs and their lobbyists. Corporate tax loopholes cost another $23 billion.
That’s $80 billion not working the way it is supposed to. That’s over $80 billion the government is giving to the very richest, making them richer.
That $80 billion could provide affordable child care, free university tuition, clean water to First Nations reserves. It could kickstart a pharmacare program, address child and seniors’ poverty, boost international development funding and allow us to invest in affordable housing and clean energy.
Imagine how much more robust our communities and democracy would be if we spent that money wisely.
Imagine how much more competitive we could be if emerging Canadian companies were on the same playing field as those that currently use tax haven subsidiaries to avoid paying their fair share.
Money talks. Many Canadians might not appreciate the message they’re getting from this preferential tax treatment.
- Norman Farrell comments on the scandal that is the B.C. Libs' use of power contracts to systematically enrich donors at public expense. And Chrystia Freeland's announcement that the federal Libs will be delivering billions to the military-industrial complex after breaking promises of social investment signals that Justin Trudeau too is focused mostly on further entrenching existing wealth.
- Peter Prontzos reviews Keith Payne's The Broken Ladder as a useful discussion of the relationship between economic inequality and social problems. And Andre Picard comments on Canada's continued failure to provide anything approaching a reasonable standard of living and health to Indigenous children.
- Finally, Stephen Tweedale sets out the case as to why Christy Clark shouldn't be able to force British Columbia into another election after the one which elected a majority of MLAs for change. And David Climenhaga reveals how the Wildrose Party is telling its members they can ignore political financing laws based on a plan to change them retroactively for partisan benefit.
Tuesday, June 06, 2017
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- John Harris discusses the appeal of Jeremy Corbyn's tendency toward genuine conversation rather than soundbites. And Gary Younge notes that the pundit class' dismissal of Corbyn has proven to say a lot more about their faulty assumptions than about the prospects of progressive politics:
- Crawford Kilian makes the case to put terrorism in perspective as an extremely small factor compared to many other causes of avoidable harm. Which makes for a needed contrast against John Ivison, who seems outraged that anybody would look behind "but terrorism!" as an excuse for an expansive and unaccountable security state.
- Finally, Jordan Press reveals how the Libs' infrastructure bank plan is intended to include having the public bear the risk of projects even as private financiers take any profits.
- John Harris discusses the appeal of Jeremy Corbyn's tendency toward genuine conversation rather than soundbites. And Gary Younge notes that the pundit class' dismissal of Corbyn has proven to say a lot more about their faulty assumptions than about the prospects of progressive politics:
The economic crash and the austerity that followed caused a tectonic shift in our political culture; what people wanted from a centre-left party changed. But the received wisdom about electability did not. Its high priests kept insisting elections are won in the centre, without any apparent understanding that the centre can move and, in times of extreme polarisation, disappear. The pragmatists turned dogmatic; the modernisers became conservative.- Meanwhile, Steve Thrasher argues that if we face any real threat to free speech, it's the violent reaction of reactionary elements against the prospect that women and people of colour could seek to exercise it. And CBC reports on how Regina Mayor Michael Fougere and two City Councillors are seeking to stifle civil disobedience.
But the principal problem with the notion of electability is that it is promoted on the premise that what has not been tried cannot possibly succeed. It suggests the way people see the world at any given moment cannot be changed through argument and activism and instead erects borders for what is permissible discussion and polices them determinedly. Those who dream outside those borders are utopian; those who speak outside them are fools.
The trouble is that in times of crisis, like this, the cost of thinking outside those borders becomes lower for many than the price of living within them. While received wisdom comes with no receipt, it’s always the same people who pick up the tab. A candidate who has connected domestic terrorism and foreign wars and argued for the redistribution of wealth to shore up public services has been surging. This, we were told, was not possible. It’s why, for the first time in a long time, a significant number of people are excited about an election.
We don’t know if his party will win. We will find that out on Thursday. The only way to truly know if something is electable is to fight for it and vote for it.
- Crawford Kilian makes the case to put terrorism in perspective as an extremely small factor compared to many other causes of avoidable harm. Which makes for a needed contrast against John Ivison, who seems outraged that anybody would look behind "but terrorism!" as an excuse for an expansive and unaccountable security state.
- Finally, Jordan Press reveals how the Libs' infrastructure bank plan is intended to include having the public bear the risk of projects even as private financiers take any profits.
Monday, June 05, 2017
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Michal Rozworski highlights how UK Labour's platform provides for a needed move toward the democratization of economic activity along with an end to gratuitous austerity. And a distinguished group of economists has signed on to support the plan.
- Charlie Skelton examines how this year's Bilderberg conference is making a mockery of issues of inclusion and fairness. And Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew point out why there's no reason to think a free trade deal between a capital-focused Justin Trudeau and an authoritarian Chinese regime will do anything but serve corporate interests at the expense of the public.
- Meanwhile, G. Elijah Dann comments that Trudeau's legacy looks to be one of empty political theatre.
- Dean Beeby reports on the Canada Revenue Agency's calculation that the federal government lost $13.6 billion in uncollected domestic revenue in 2014 alone.
- Finally, Murray Mandryk writes that the Wall government's decision to shut down the Saskatchewan Transportation Company (among other budget cuts) looks to have caused a sea change in rural support. And the fact that the Saskatchewan Party is more focused on trying to justify continued cash-for-access fund-raisin than doing anything to benefit Saskatchewan's citizens figures to make it all the more difficult to reverse that trend.
- Michal Rozworski highlights how UK Labour's platform provides for a needed move toward the democratization of economic activity along with an end to gratuitous austerity. And a distinguished group of economists has signed on to support the plan.
- Charlie Skelton examines how this year's Bilderberg conference is making a mockery of issues of inclusion and fairness. And Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew point out why there's no reason to think a free trade deal between a capital-focused Justin Trudeau and an authoritarian Chinese regime will do anything but serve corporate interests at the expense of the public.
- Meanwhile, G. Elijah Dann comments that Trudeau's legacy looks to be one of empty political theatre.
- Dean Beeby reports on the Canada Revenue Agency's calculation that the federal government lost $13.6 billion in uncollected domestic revenue in 2014 alone.
- Finally, Murray Mandryk writes that the Wall government's decision to shut down the Saskatchewan Transportation Company (among other budget cuts) looks to have caused a sea change in rural support. And the fact that the Saskatchewan Party is more focused on trying to justify continued cash-for-access fund-raisin than doing anything to benefit Saskatchewan's citizens figures to make it all the more difficult to reverse that trend.
Sunday, June 04, 2017
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Armine Yalnizyan writes that a $15 minimum wage is ultimately good for businesses as well as for people:
- Cindy Blackstock asks rhetorically why the Libs continue to discriminate against Indigenous children rather than making any effort to comply with their human rights obligations. And Kristy Kirkup reports on Charlie Angus' justified criticism of a government which is happy to spend money to deny equality, but unwilling to direct resources toward achieving it.
- Kelly Toughill exposes how the same Trudeau Lib government which is still dragging its heels on even looking at meaningful amendments to Bill C-51 wasted no time at all imposing a new and information-sharing program to make personal information about Canadians available to other countries.
- Finally, Aaron Wherry writes that while the Libs may have tried to leave any talk of electoral reform in the past, plenty of Canadians still want to see a more fair voting system - and provinces and municipalities may soon be leading the way.
- Armine Yalnizyan writes that a $15 minimum wage is ultimately good for businesses as well as for people:
When higher income households see wage gains, some of it goes to savings. Additional consumption also often flows to vacations and luxury goods, often imported. In other words a non-trivial part leaks out of the local economy.- Jessica Carpinone highlights how an employer can thrive while paying employees a reasonable minimum wage. And Geoff Dembicki discusses how extreme high-end retailers are raking in money compared to other businesses due to the growth of income inequality in Canada.
When lower income households see a sustained rise in incomes, they spend virtually all of it. Most goes to food (more nutritious food or eating out), better health care and more education. Sometimes it also goes to rent (moving to a better neighbourhood). Almost all of this spending stays in the local economy.
So boost the minimum wage and you boost the economy from the bottom up.
- Cindy Blackstock asks rhetorically why the Libs continue to discriminate against Indigenous children rather than making any effort to comply with their human rights obligations. And Kristy Kirkup reports on Charlie Angus' justified criticism of a government which is happy to spend money to deny equality, but unwilling to direct resources toward achieving it.
- Kelly Toughill exposes how the same Trudeau Lib government which is still dragging its heels on even looking at meaningful amendments to Bill C-51 wasted no time at all imposing a new and information-sharing program to make personal information about Canadians available to other countries.
- Finally, Aaron Wherry writes that while the Libs may have tried to leave any talk of electoral reform in the past, plenty of Canadians still want to see a more fair voting system - and provinces and municipalities may soon be leading the way.
Saturday, June 03, 2017
Outside by choice
It's certainly disappointing that Pat Stogran has chosen to drop out of the NDP's leadership race - particularly by leaving taking shots at the party which made sure he had a place on its stage.
That said, Stogran's campaign ultimately seems to have been defined by an unwillingness to learn about the political process in which he wanted to participate, combined with an inclination to blame others for that weakness. And while he never had a strong chance of winning the NDP's leadership, his quick and bitter exit can't be taken to have done much other than throw away any chance of contributing to change for the better.
That said, Stogran's campaign ultimately seems to have been defined by an unwillingness to learn about the political process in which he wanted to participate, combined with an inclination to blame others for that weakness. And while he never had a strong chance of winning the NDP's leadership, his quick and bitter exit can't be taken to have done much other than throw away any chance of contributing to change for the better.
Labels:
leadership 2017,
ndp,
pat stogran
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Meagan Gilmore examines how an increased minimum wage is good for business.
- Hannah Aldridge offers some suggestions to keep a poverty reduction strategy on target. And Make Poverty History notes that Brian Pallister is offering a textbook example of how not to do it by ignoring his government's responsibility to update Manitoba's existing plan.
- The CP reports that Canada's cities are trying to push Justin Trudeau's Libs to stop stalling on funding for social housing. But Jordan Press and Andy Blatchford note that instead of tackling important social problems, Trudeau is focused on an infrastructure banks scheme designed to privatize profits while leaving risks in public hands.
- Laura Stone discusses how the Libs' supposed response to public outcry over cash-for-access fund-raising falls short of the mark. And Karen Howlett points out how disclosure of doctors' ties to pharmaceutical funding could have gone a long way toward preventing today's opioid epidemic.
- Finally, Joe Castaldo explains why people are so easily persuaded that financial bubbles are the new normal - while noting that Toronto and Vancouver's real estate markets look to have fooled far too many in recent years.
- Meagan Gilmore examines how an increased minimum wage is good for business.
- Hannah Aldridge offers some suggestions to keep a poverty reduction strategy on target. And Make Poverty History notes that Brian Pallister is offering a textbook example of how not to do it by ignoring his government's responsibility to update Manitoba's existing plan.
- The CP reports that Canada's cities are trying to push Justin Trudeau's Libs to stop stalling on funding for social housing. But Jordan Press and Andy Blatchford note that instead of tackling important social problems, Trudeau is focused on an infrastructure banks scheme designed to privatize profits while leaving risks in public hands.
- Laura Stone discusses how the Libs' supposed response to public outcry over cash-for-access fund-raising falls short of the mark. And Karen Howlett points out how disclosure of doctors' ties to pharmaceutical funding could have gone a long way toward preventing today's opioid epidemic.
- Finally, Joe Castaldo explains why people are so easily persuaded that financial bubbles are the new normal - while noting that Toronto and Vancouver's real estate markets look to have fooled far too many in recent years.
Friday, June 02, 2017
Musical interlude
Tame Impala - The Less I Know The Better
Labels:
music blogging
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Don Pittis discusses the growing price everybody pays for more extreme weather events caused by climate change. And Adrienne Lafrance offers a grim look at what's in store if we can't curb greenhouse gas emissions in a hurry.
- Seth Klein and Shannon Daub write that British Columbia's Green-supported NDP government represents a historic opportunity for lasting progressive change, while Derrick O'Keefe comments on the prospect of a regular progressive majority to give effect to what most B.C. voters want. Maxwell Cameron recognizes the importance of a successful cooperate government in pursuing that end. Paul Willcocks declares citizens to be the big winner in B.C.'s election. And Nick Fillmore points out reasons for optimism for progressives from across Canada.
- Stefania Seccia highlights four principles which can end chronic homelessness - though they can largely be boiled down to treating people as mattering rather than being unworthy of help. And Matthew Yglesias comments on the importance of defending and improving the social safety net which already exists, rather than relying solely on a basic income to address poverty and inequality.
- But Steve Inskeep talks to Richard Reeves about the U.S.' privileged class which is hoarding opportunities which should be available to everybody. Patricia Cohen weighs in on the personal precarity created by uncertain incomes.
- Finally, Alberta Treasury Branches charts the rise of inequality in Alberta over a period of decades.
- Don Pittis discusses the growing price everybody pays for more extreme weather events caused by climate change. And Adrienne Lafrance offers a grim look at what's in store if we can't curb greenhouse gas emissions in a hurry.
- Seth Klein and Shannon Daub write that British Columbia's Green-supported NDP government represents a historic opportunity for lasting progressive change, while Derrick O'Keefe comments on the prospect of a regular progressive majority to give effect to what most B.C. voters want. Maxwell Cameron recognizes the importance of a successful cooperate government in pursuing that end. Paul Willcocks declares citizens to be the big winner in B.C.'s election. And Nick Fillmore points out reasons for optimism for progressives from across Canada.
- Stefania Seccia highlights four principles which can end chronic homelessness - though they can largely be boiled down to treating people as mattering rather than being unworthy of help. And Matthew Yglesias comments on the importance of defending and improving the social safety net which already exists, rather than relying solely on a basic income to address poverty and inequality.
- But Steve Inskeep talks to Richard Reeves about the U.S.' privileged class which is hoarding opportunities which should be available to everybody. Patricia Cohen weighs in on the personal precarity created by uncertain incomes.
- Finally, Alberta Treasury Branches charts the rise of inequality in Alberta over a period of decades.
Thursday, June 01, 2017
New column day
Here, on how several other provinces are setting new (and necessary standards) for worker protections while Saskatchewan falls further behind.
For further reading...
- Ontario's Changing Workplaces Review is here (in full), and here (in summary form). CBC reports on Kathleen Wynne's subsequent minimum wage announcement, while Sheila Block crunches the numbers on how it will reduce inequality. And Thomas Walkom points out how even Ontario's plan falls short of the mark in protecting people stuck in precarious work and allowing for labour to organize.
- Alberta's summary of its planned Labour Relations Code amendments is here.
- The governance agreement between the B.C. NDP and Greens is here (PDF), featuring the terms on labour and employment issues at 2(d) and (e).
- Finally, in contrast to all those current plans, the last substantial review of Saskatchewan's general labour and employment law took place in 2012, and resulted in this largely anti-worker set of provisions.
For further reading...
- Ontario's Changing Workplaces Review is here (in full), and here (in summary form). CBC reports on Kathleen Wynne's subsequent minimum wage announcement, while Sheila Block crunches the numbers on how it will reduce inequality. And Thomas Walkom points out how even Ontario's plan falls short of the mark in protecting people stuck in precarious work and allowing for labour to organize.
- Alberta's summary of its planned Labour Relations Code amendments is here.
- The governance agreement between the B.C. NDP and Greens is here (PDF), featuring the terms on labour and employment issues at 2(d) and (e).
- Finally, in contrast to all those current plans, the last substantial review of Saskatchewan's general labour and employment law took place in 2012, and resulted in this largely anti-worker set of provisions.
Labels:
alberta ndp,
b.c. ndp,
brad wall,
columns,
john horgan,
kathleen wynne,
labour,
minimum wage,
ontario libs,
precarity,
rachel notley,
sask party,
wages
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Wednesday Evening Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Diane Cardwell points out how carbon politics are threatening renewable energy just at the point where it would win a fair fight against fossil fuels. And J. David Hughes finds that any case for Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline falls apart in the face of realistic assumptions about oil prices.
- Meanwhile, Emma Gilchrist digs into the many environmental positives of the B.C. governance agreement signed between the NDP and the Greens.
- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the sale of a large chain of child care centres to a foreign parent which figures to result in lobbying for lowered standards and higher profits. And CBC News reveals that KPMG-linked foreign entities saw fit to destroy the evidence which could have allowed the Canada Revenue Agency to track down tax cheats.
- Taylor Bendig discusses the end of the line for the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, while Erin Weir highlights the fact that Brad Wall's desire to shut down province-wide public transportation had nothing to do with funding and everything to do with ideology - as evidenced by his refusal to see whether federal funding could help to maintain services.
- Murray Mandryk writes about Wall's complete lack of accountability surrounding the Global Transportation Hub fiasco.
- Finally, Nancy Merrill argues that sufficient legal aid funding is an essential part of a just society.
- Diane Cardwell points out how carbon politics are threatening renewable energy just at the point where it would win a fair fight against fossil fuels. And J. David Hughes finds that any case for Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline falls apart in the face of realistic assumptions about oil prices.
- Meanwhile, Emma Gilchrist digs into the many environmental positives of the B.C. governance agreement signed between the NDP and the Greens.
- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the sale of a large chain of child care centres to a foreign parent which figures to result in lobbying for lowered standards and higher profits. And CBC News reveals that KPMG-linked foreign entities saw fit to destroy the evidence which could have allowed the Canada Revenue Agency to track down tax cheats.
- Taylor Bendig discusses the end of the line for the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, while Erin Weir highlights the fact that Brad Wall's desire to shut down province-wide public transportation had nothing to do with funding and everything to do with ideology - as evidenced by his refusal to see whether federal funding could help to maintain services.
- Murray Mandryk writes about Wall's complete lack of accountability surrounding the Global Transportation Hub fiasco.
- Finally, Nancy Merrill argues that sufficient legal aid funding is an essential part of a just society.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Annette Alstadsæter, Niels Johannesen and Gabriel Zucman examine (PDF) the size and distribution of tax evasion and (not surprisingly) find it clustered at the top - with the wealthiest .01% dodging 30% of its obligation to society at large. And Marco Chown Oved reports that the Canada Revenue Agency is finally pursuing criminal investigations into offshore tax evasion.
- Meanwhile, Paul Buchheit rightly questions why any government would want to hand tax cuts to businesses who are already refusing to pay their fair share.
- Angela Rayner writes about UK Labour's plan for a truly universal child care system. And Max Shanly and Ronan Burtenshaw highlight the drastic change for the better on offer from Labour's policy platform - along with the strong public support for improved redistribution of wealth:
- Finally, the Star's editorial board asks what it will take for the federal government to live up to its obligation not to discriminate against Indigenous children - though the obvious answer is a party in power which actually cares about substantive change enough to dedicate resources to it, rather than seeing photo ops and empty announcements as accomplishments.
- Annette Alstadsæter, Niels Johannesen and Gabriel Zucman examine (PDF) the size and distribution of tax evasion and (not surprisingly) find it clustered at the top - with the wealthiest .01% dodging 30% of its obligation to society at large. And Marco Chown Oved reports that the Canada Revenue Agency is finally pursuing criminal investigations into offshore tax evasion.
- Meanwhile, Paul Buchheit rightly questions why any government would want to hand tax cuts to businesses who are already refusing to pay their fair share.
- Angela Rayner writes about UK Labour's plan for a truly universal child care system. And Max Shanly and Ronan Burtenshaw highlight the drastic change for the better on offer from Labour's policy platform - along with the strong public support for improved redistribution of wealth:
But it wasn’t just the manifesto that was popular, it was also the kind of politics that has been used to communicate its ideas. For months, Corbynism has tried to build a radical politics from the halls of Westminster, playing a game of high politics at which its enemies are more adept. In this campaign, Corbyn’s team have thrown off the shackles of that environment — holding large rallies around the country, sharing the stage with campaigners from a wide range of social causes, taking socialist politics to the people who are its concern. This dynamic, grassroots campaign has helped to transform public opinion of Corbyn and engage thousands in his project of social transformation.- CBC reports on the progress made as a result of Ontario's workplace review (and the public pressure which caused it to happen), with a $15 minimum wage and improved protections for part-time and precarious workers among the gains.
...
None of this could have happened if the battle had remained confined to the stage-managed theater of Westminster, with scripts written by the mainstream press and an ill-fitting costume of respectability draped around Corbyn’s shoulders. It is with mass politics that the Left can win — and the same will be true for this manifesto.
No significant program of redistributing wealth and power can be achieved through parliament alone. Even if Labour was to win on June 8, its manifesto would face significant opposition — from the right-wing of the Labour Party, the press empires, elite civil servants, and the business class. The only way to see it implemented would be to organize for it outside of parliament, through social movements that demand its proposals, trade unions that fight for them in the workplace, and a revitalized Labour Party that becomes a vehicle for popular power at a local as well as national level.
In the more likely circumstance that Labour is defeated in the election, the party’s right will immediately argue that it was because its leadership was too left wing. But we now know this is not true. The vast majority of the country supports left-wing policies — it is the Labour right and their allies in the political, business, and media elite who are in the minority. The next battle will be to defend the manifesto from their attacks.
- Finally, the Star's editorial board asks what it will take for the federal government to live up to its obligation not to discriminate against Indigenous children - though the obvious answer is a party in power which actually cares about substantive change enough to dedicate resources to it, rather than seeing photo ops and empty announcements as accomplishments.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Monday Morning Links
Assorted content to start your week.
- Rhys Kesselman challenges the Fraser Institute's grossly distorted conception of "tax competitiveness":
- Josh Keefe and David Sirota discuss the obvious corporatist bent of Donald Trump's infrastructure scheme - including his plan to hand free money to the corporations taking over what's already been built with public funds. And Bill Curry reports on the obvious vulnerability of the Libs' planned infrastructure bank to political interference.
- Finally, Michael Harris writes that the Cons' thoroughly uninspiring leadership race has left the door wide open for the NDP to make the most compelling offer of change for the better in the next federal election campaign.
- Rhys Kesselman challenges the Fraser Institute's grossly distorted conception of "tax competitiveness":
Even with lower overall tax burdens, many Americans bear much heavier non-tax burdens than their Canadian counterparts. These costs can be so large as to swamp any tax-rate differentials between the countries. Private health insurance in the U.S. can cost a family US$15,000 or more per year. Inferior public schools in parts of the U.S. can impel families who can afford it to expend large sums on private schooling.- Meanwhile, Wendy Bach examines the difference between the lucrative and effort-free tax giveaways available for the wealthy in the U.S., and the miserly and punitive benefit system for people who actually need public assistance.
When provided by U.S. employers, health insurance constitutes a heavy cost burden to business that their Canadian counterparts don’t bear. Those costs are covered by public health care in B.C., which accounts for much of our higher tax rates, but overall doesn’t detract from our tax competitiveness.
The authors further ignore the impact of B.C.’s astronomical housing costs on the health of the economy. B.C. businesses must offer higher pay to attract and retain employees or limit their hiring and expansion. Both the B.C. Greens and NDP have taxation-based proposals to reduce home prices — aimed at foreign and speculative buyers — which would assist local business hiring while augmenting public funds.
In short, “tax competitiveness” is a catchphrase with limited meaning unless one delves more deeply. Warnings that NDP and Green tax initiatives would endanger the B.C. economy are alarmism. Rather, the added revenues could support public programs shortchanged for years by the provincial government’s dogged quest to be “tax-competitive.”
- Josh Keefe and David Sirota discuss the obvious corporatist bent of Donald Trump's infrastructure scheme - including his plan to hand free money to the corporations taking over what's already been built with public funds. And Bill Curry reports on the obvious vulnerability of the Libs' planned infrastructure bank to political interference.
- Finally, Michael Harris writes that the Cons' thoroughly uninspiring leadership race has left the door wide open for the NDP to make the most compelling offer of change for the better in the next federal election campaign.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Nick Saul reminds us of the need for strong and consistent public pressure to end poverty. And the Economist points out how punitive criminal justice policies coupled with a lack of rehabilitation strand people in poverty rather than allowing for a path toward contributing to society.
- Thomas Walkom comments on Ontario's relatively unambitious workplace review - and worries that even its modest suggestions won't end up becoming (or being enforced as) law. And Angella MacEwen examines the state of federally-regulated workplaces and finds plenty of precarity which needs to be addressed.
- Meanwhile, Lana Payne highlights the need to keep counting gender iniquities as long as they persist.
- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the role a basic income can play in encouraging social entrepreneurship.
- Finally, Justin Ling writes that the Libs' attempt to normalize a less-accountable and more-disruptive surveillance state was met with ample public pushback - though it remains to be seen whether they'll bother to make good on their promise of any change whatsoever to the Cons' C-51.
- Nick Saul reminds us of the need for strong and consistent public pressure to end poverty. And the Economist points out how punitive criminal justice policies coupled with a lack of rehabilitation strand people in poverty rather than allowing for a path toward contributing to society.
- Thomas Walkom comments on Ontario's relatively unambitious workplace review - and worries that even its modest suggestions won't end up becoming (or being enforced as) law. And Angella MacEwen examines the state of federally-regulated workplaces and finds plenty of precarity which needs to be addressed.
- Meanwhile, Lana Payne highlights the need to keep counting gender iniquities as long as they persist.
- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the role a basic income can play in encouraging social entrepreneurship.
- Finally, Justin Ling writes that the Libs' attempt to normalize a less-accountable and more-disruptive surveillance state was met with ample public pushback - though it remains to be seen whether they'll bother to make good on their promise of any change whatsoever to the Cons' C-51.
On changing opposition
While there will be plenty more to discuss about how the Conservatives' choice of Andrew Scheer as their new leader, I'll offer a few preliminary thoughts now - starting with a warning about knee-jerk reactions.
We shouldn't presume that Scheer's apparent lack of current definition will last long: the Libs are obviously wasting no time in trying to define him, while the fruits of the Cons' fund-raising machine will surely kick in quickly in response.
But nor should we presume that his being young means that he'll have multiple election campaigns to grow into the position.
While the standard take seems to be that Scheer is the new version of Stephen Harper, I'd think the better comparison and cautionary tale for Scheer is Joe Clark: a young and little-known compromise candidate whose missteps as a leader will be amplified by the lack of many people particularly committed to him within his own party.
On the balance, Scheer's election looks to be relatively good news compared to the alternatives - not because of his merits as a candidate, but due to the greater electoral and policy risks posed by the alternative.
I'd considered Bernier the most dangerous of the Cons' potential leaders, being comparatively more likely to assemble a winning coalition in a near-term federal election (particularly by being able to win votes as a native son in Quebec), to make reckless policy choices if he managed to take power, and to be the main focus of the next federal election in a way that causes the race to polarize between the Libs and Cons.
In contrast, Scheer's starting point involves a distinct lack of meaningful policy priorities or avenues to build support beyond the Cons' base.
That doesn't mean he can't change matters with time. After all, Harper managed at various times to win seats with appeals to Quebec voters and immigrant communities who were far outside his initial core of supporters.
But for now, Scheer is essentially a blank sheet of stationery with Reform Party letterhead. And it remains to be seen whether there's anything he can write on the page to be seen as a viable candidate for power.
We shouldn't presume that Scheer's apparent lack of current definition will last long: the Libs are obviously wasting no time in trying to define him, while the fruits of the Cons' fund-raising machine will surely kick in quickly in response.
But nor should we presume that his being young means that he'll have multiple election campaigns to grow into the position.
While the standard take seems to be that Scheer is the new version of Stephen Harper, I'd think the better comparison and cautionary tale for Scheer is Joe Clark: a young and little-known compromise candidate whose missteps as a leader will be amplified by the lack of many people particularly committed to him within his own party.
On the balance, Scheer's election looks to be relatively good news compared to the alternatives - not because of his merits as a candidate, but due to the greater electoral and policy risks posed by the alternative.
I'd considered Bernier the most dangerous of the Cons' potential leaders, being comparatively more likely to assemble a winning coalition in a near-term federal election (particularly by being able to win votes as a native son in Quebec), to make reckless policy choices if he managed to take power, and to be the main focus of the next federal election in a way that causes the race to polarize between the Libs and Cons.
In contrast, Scheer's starting point involves a distinct lack of meaningful policy priorities or avenues to build support beyond the Cons' base.
That doesn't mean he can't change matters with time. After all, Harper managed at various times to win seats with appeals to Quebec voters and immigrant communities who were far outside his initial core of supporters.
But for now, Scheer is essentially a blank sheet of stationery with Reform Party letterhead. And it remains to be seen whether there's anything he can write on the page to be seen as a viable candidate for power.
Labels:
andrew scheer,
canada 2019,
cons,
maxime bernier,
stephen harper
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- David MacDonald studies the federal government's loopholes and giveaways targeted toward those who already have the most - noting that there would be plenty of revenue to fund the programs we're told are unaffordable if that preferential treatment was ended. And Felicity Lawrence highlights
how multinational corporations are planning to exploit international trade deals to siphon $55 billions away from the UK's public coffers.
- On that front, Jerry Dias argues that having dodged the bullet that is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Canada shouldn't waste any more time (or endanger the public interest) by trying to renegotiate and revive it.
- Andrew Jackson points out how inequality worsened during the Harper Cons' stay in power. Zohra Jamasi highlights how Canadian wages continue to lag behind inflation. And Pedro Nicolaci da Costa discusses the U.S.' similar lack of wage growth due to the destruction of workers' bargaining power, while Chris Rexrode writes that U.S. households are returning to their pre-crash pattern of borrowing against home values to paper over the gap.
- Meanwhile, Jim Stanford examines Air Canada's history of selling itself off for parts as an example of businesses similarly prioritizing easy and quick money over long-term planning - making a few insiders rich, and everybody else worse off.
- Finally, Ashifa Kassam calls out Justin Trudeau for using public relations stunts as a substitute for government accountability to citizens. And a few creative commentators (particularly @ajhtweeting) have put Trudeau's running away from issues into some handy visuals:
- David MacDonald studies the federal government's loopholes and giveaways targeted toward those who already have the most - noting that there would be plenty of revenue to fund the programs we're told are unaffordable if that preferential treatment was ended. And Felicity Lawrence highlights
how multinational corporations are planning to exploit international trade deals to siphon $55 billions away from the UK's public coffers.
- On that front, Jerry Dias argues that having dodged the bullet that is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Canada shouldn't waste any more time (or endanger the public interest) by trying to renegotiate and revive it.
- Andrew Jackson points out how inequality worsened during the Harper Cons' stay in power. Zohra Jamasi highlights how Canadian wages continue to lag behind inflation. And Pedro Nicolaci da Costa discusses the U.S.' similar lack of wage growth due to the destruction of workers' bargaining power, while Chris Rexrode writes that U.S. households are returning to their pre-crash pattern of borrowing against home values to paper over the gap.
- Meanwhile, Jim Stanford examines Air Canada's history of selling itself off for parts as an example of businesses similarly prioritizing easy and quick money over long-term planning - making a few insiders rich, and everybody else worse off.
- Finally, Ashifa Kassam calls out Justin Trudeau for using public relations stunts as a substitute for government accountability to citizens. And a few creative commentators (particularly @ajhtweeting) have put Trudeau's running away from issues into some handy visuals:
Trudeau jogs past Site C dam clear cut carnage. Oblivious. #StopSiteC #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/3O7biS5Hwr— A J Henderson (@ajhtweeting) May 21, 2017
Trudeau jogs over the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nobody notices#C51 #C45 #cannabisact #nopipelines #cdnpoli @ajhtweeting pic.twitter.com/lznPlJ63gP— The Perfidious SH (@perfidiousSH) May 24, 2017
Trudeau jogs through the Attawapiskat First Nation reserve. Nothing changes. #cdnpoli #FirstNations pic.twitter.com/NDAch6LY5D— A J Henderson (@ajhtweeting) May 21, 2017
Trudeau jogs past Kinder Morgan protest. No one notices. #cdnpoli #StopKinderMorgan pic.twitter.com/5ulHl4iIKu— A J Henderson (@ajhtweeting) May 21, 2017
— The Cambridgian (@TheCambridgian) May 24, 2017
Trudeau jogs past electoral reform. Nothing changes. #cdnpoli #KeepYourPromise pic.twitter.com/BNVtYO4rQc— A J Henderson (@ajhtweeting) May 21, 2017
Friday, May 26, 2017
Musical interlude
Barney Bentall and the Legendary Hearts - I'm Shattered
Labels:
music blogging
Thursday, May 25, 2017
On sucker's deals
While my Leader-Post column won't be running this week, I'll take the opportunity to offer some context and an update on Geoff Leo's must-read report on Brightenview's founders who have become the Wall government's latest corporate darlings.
By way of background, Leo was also the one to break the news about how the Saskatchewan Party's campaign promise based on Brightenview was built on an incomplete deal, as well as the province's giveaway to CP which was supposed to provide an anchor tenant for the Global Transportation Hub to encourage other businesses to build without the need for massive public subsidies. And Julie Mintenko and David Giles reported on Brightenview's disappearance of its past promises of a Dundurn megamall.
With that in mind, should we expect anything different from Brightenview in the GTH? To answer that, let's take a photographic tour of its planned development.
First, here are artist's renderings of what it's supposed to look like (from Leo's report):
Second, the "breaking ground" photo op three weeks ago (also from CBC's report), showing what was advertised for public consumption as the start of work:
And for the punch line, the same site in its current condition:
Needless to say, the smart money looks to be on past performance predicting future results. But since Brightenview and the Saskatchewan Party each seem to have contributed to each other's confidence games, whether they lead to any benefit for the public is at most a secondary consideration.
By way of background, Leo was also the one to break the news about how the Saskatchewan Party's campaign promise based on Brightenview was built on an incomplete deal, as well as the province's giveaway to CP which was supposed to provide an anchor tenant for the Global Transportation Hub to encourage other businesses to build without the need for massive public subsidies. And Julie Mintenko and David Giles reported on Brightenview's disappearance of its past promises of a Dundurn megamall.
With that in mind, should we expect anything different from Brightenview in the GTH? To answer that, let's take a photographic tour of its planned development.
First, here are artist's renderings of what it's supposed to look like (from Leo's report):
Second, the "breaking ground" photo op three weeks ago (also from CBC's report), showing what was advertised for public consumption as the start of work:
And for the punch line, the same site in its current condition:
Needless to say, the smart money looks to be on past performance predicting future results. But since Brightenview and the Saskatchewan Party each seem to have contributed to each other's confidence games, whether they lead to any benefit for the public is at most a secondary consideration.
Labels:
brad wall,
cbc,
columns,
corruption,
geoff leo,
gth,
sask party
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett write about the psychological and social harms arising out of inequality:
- Alex Collinson points out how increased borrowing has replaced wage growth as a major support for consumer spending. And Jonathan Morduch and Rachel Schneider comment on the stresses caused by income volatility.
- Freddie Deboer examines how the U.S.' exclusive private universities exacerbate inequality - particularly as public universities face severe government cutbacks. And Colette Shade laments the reality that the Smithsonian and other cultural institutions are serving to provide prepackaged corporate messaging rather than neutral or public-focused content.
- Finally, the Star's editorial board asks all levels of government to make sure that social housing is maintained and retained, rather than being allowed to crumble.
- Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett write about the psychological and social harms arising out of inequality:
Members of species that have strong ranking systems need social strategies for maximising and maintaining rank while avoiding the risk of attacks by dominants. Although there are many variations in the way ranking systems work in different species, what we might call the ‘pure’ logic of ranking systems is that position in the dominance hierarchy determines who has precedence over whom in access to scarce resources; orderings are based on strength and power, and disputes are resolved by trials of strength; you show respect and deference to superiors and treat inferiors with impunity and disdain.- Ann Pettifor discusses how democracy is suffering due to the failures of neoliberal economics. And the Kansas City Star points out that Donald Trump's choice to follow Sam Brownback's failed prescription only stands to make matters worse for most people.
This contrasts sharply with the social strategies that in more egalitarian societies replace rank as the main determinant of access to resources. These include social accounting systems based on reciprocity, sharing and cooperation, in which trust and trustworthiness are essential. People who seem to be more trustworthy, generous and kind will be preferred as mates and as partners in cooperative activities. But as well as selection for pro-social characteristics, Boehm shows that there was also deselection for anti-social characteristics: Selfishness and anti-social behaviour in hunting and gathering societies would result in people being ridiculed, ostracised or even killed (Boehm, 2012).
Because the contrast between the behaviour appropriate in each of these two systems is so great, it is important to match one's behaviour to one's setting. Generosity and selflessness are valued and rewarded among friends and in egalitarian settings but would simply be taken advantage of and exploited in a dominance hierarchy. Similarly, the naked pursuit of self-interest and self-aggrandisement appropriate to a rank ordered society would have led to ostracism in a typical hunting and gathering society. It is therefore crucial for behaviour to be sensitive to how hierarchical or egalitarian a society is.
This leads us to expect the pattern of differences in behaviour that we see between more and less egalitarian societies (egalitarianism as judged from the distribution of material resources or income). As we shall see, in more unequal societies, status becomes more important, status anxiety increases and self-serving individualism and self-aggrandisement increase. Community life, rooted in trust, reciprocity and public spiritedness, declines; bullying and violence increase. Of course, rather than using one social strategy or another, everyone uses a mix of dominance and affiliative strategies in different areas of life. Our hypothesis is simply that the balance between these strategies shifts depending on the level of inequality.
- Alex Collinson points out how increased borrowing has replaced wage growth as a major support for consumer spending. And Jonathan Morduch and Rachel Schneider comment on the stresses caused by income volatility.
- Freddie Deboer examines how the U.S.' exclusive private universities exacerbate inequality - particularly as public universities face severe government cutbacks. And Colette Shade laments the reality that the Smithsonian and other cultural institutions are serving to provide prepackaged corporate messaging rather than neutral or public-focused content.
- Finally, the Star's editorial board asks all levels of government to make sure that social housing is maintained and retained, rather than being allowed to crumble.
Labels:
debt,
donald trump,
housing,
inequality,
museums,
neoliberalism,
precarity,
privatization,
the star,
wages
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Gary Younge examines how Jeremy Corbyn and an unabashedly progressive campaign platform are making massive gains in a UK general election cynically called to exploit Labour's perceived weakness:
- Dean Beeby reports on the real-time reaction of Canadians to the most recent federal budget - with higher taxes on the rich ranking as by far the most-appreciated message on offer. And Yves Engler suggests that the benefits of incorporation could be limited to businesses who act based on some recognition of social responsibility.
- Alex Hemingway discusses the social costs of poverty and austerity in British Columbia. Claire McIlveen highlights the social benefits of a $15 minimum wage. And George Crisp comments on the connection between inequality and poor health in Australia.
- Finally, Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood studies the gap between promises and actions when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
- Gary Younge examines how Jeremy Corbyn and an unabashedly progressive campaign platform are making massive gains in a UK general election cynically called to exploit Labour's perceived weakness:
Seeing the response to Labour’s election manifesto last week was a clear illustration of just how powerful the amnesiac qualities of that system can be. For the past two decades, even as inequality grew to obscene levels, the notion that a government could tax the wealthy in order to fund public services had been all but banished from the public square. Similarly, the idea that we could take back into national ownership private companies delivering abysmal but essential public services, such as trains and utilities, was simply not discussed. These arguments were never lost; they were simply marginalised until we just stopped hearing them.- Meanwhile, Abi Wilkinson sees Labour now having a substantial chance of winning an election where pre-election punditry focused on little more than a presumed wipeout. And Matt Zarb-Cousin notes that the requirement for fair coverage during a campaign is likely helping matters significantly.
...
[Corbyn] was never going to succeed on the terms of the mainstream media and significant sections of the parliamentary party. For them, his failure was pre-scripted. Last Monday Corbyn was mobbed by enthusiastic crowds in Leeds while Theresa May was confronted by a woman with learning difficulties in Abingdon over the disability cuts. On Tuesday the Daily Mail front page headline was: “Corbyn’s tax war on the middle classes”. Meanwhile, those who abstained on the Tory welfare bill and ignored a million people marching against a war long ago abdicated the right to accuse anyone of failing to provide opposition.
The problem was that Corbyn was failing on his own terms. As such, the manifesto has had an almost therapeutic effect. Beyond reintroducing basic social democratic policies to the arena, it provides the clearest illustration yet of what the last two traumatic years within the Labour party have been about. This unexpected left turn in the party’s leadership was, it turns out, not about delivering the party to Hamas, but delivering decent public services and a programme for tackling inequality.
- Dean Beeby reports on the real-time reaction of Canadians to the most recent federal budget - with higher taxes on the rich ranking as by far the most-appreciated message on offer. And Yves Engler suggests that the benefits of incorporation could be limited to businesses who act based on some recognition of social responsibility.
- Alex Hemingway discusses the social costs of poverty and austerity in British Columbia. Claire McIlveen highlights the social benefits of a $15 minimum wage. And George Crisp comments on the connection between inequality and poor health in Australia.
- Finally, Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood studies the gap between promises and actions when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Patrick Butler writes about the increasing number of UK families mired in poverty and insecure housing even with one or more people working. And Ali Monceaux and Daniel Najarian discuss the importance of a fair minimum wage in providing people with a basic standard of living.
- Kelly Grant reports on the Libs' baby steps toward dealing with the high cost of prescription drugs. And Andre Picard offers some suggestions as to how to make our health care system work better, while John Geddes points out that Maxime Bernier wants to lead the Cons toward trashing universal health care altogether.
- Damian Carrington discusses new research showing how even relatively small rises in the sea level caused by global warming will massively increase flooding risks, while Chris Mooney notes that levels are in fact rising increasingly quickly. But Hiroko Tabuchi and Eric Lipton highlight how a single bad actor - in this case the Trump administration - can undermine any effort to regulate the causes of climate change.
- Meanwhile, Maude Barlow examines (PDF) how corporate-centred trade deals threaten the availability of clean and safe water. And Edgardo Sepulveda takes a look at the needless public expense being created by the Wynne Libs in order to avoid answering for their damage to Ontario Hydro.
- Finally, Matt Bruenig argues that class struggle is key to ensuring that the benefits of growth go to the many rather than the few:
- Patrick Butler writes about the increasing number of UK families mired in poverty and insecure housing even with one or more people working. And Ali Monceaux and Daniel Najarian discuss the importance of a fair minimum wage in providing people with a basic standard of living.
- Kelly Grant reports on the Libs' baby steps toward dealing with the high cost of prescription drugs. And Andre Picard offers some suggestions as to how to make our health care system work better, while John Geddes points out that Maxime Bernier wants to lead the Cons toward trashing universal health care altogether.
- Damian Carrington discusses new research showing how even relatively small rises in the sea level caused by global warming will massively increase flooding risks, while Chris Mooney notes that levels are in fact rising increasingly quickly. But Hiroko Tabuchi and Eric Lipton highlight how a single bad actor - in this case the Trump administration - can undermine any effort to regulate the causes of climate change.
- Meanwhile, Maude Barlow examines (PDF) how corporate-centred trade deals threaten the availability of clean and safe water. And Edgardo Sepulveda takes a look at the needless public expense being created by the Wynne Libs in order to avoid answering for their damage to Ontario Hydro.
- Finally, Matt Bruenig argues that class struggle is key to ensuring that the benefits of growth go to the many rather than the few:
If you believe, as Piketty argues in his book, that a reduction in growth will inexorably lead to a higher wealth-to-income ratio and a higher capital share, then perhaps the best you can do is pare down wealth accumulation and spread out its ownership through a progressive wealth tax.
But if you believe instead that the capital share does not rise inevitably but only as a result of capitalists getting the upper hand in the perpetual battle over the distribution of output in society, then many more solutions become plausible. Increasing housing supply and imposing rent controls, weakening intellectual property protections, empowering workers to fight for a bigger piece of the pie — all would have the same or even greater egalitarian effects.
American Airlines’ decision to increase its workers’ compensation caused over $2.2 billion of national wealth to vanish almost instantly — not because actual capital goods were destroyed, but because capital’s share was ever so slightly reduced. Empowering workers to repeat this fairly mundane episode again and again, throughout the economy, would likely be a much stronger brake on runaway wealth accumulation and inequality than a global wealth tax or other similarly elaborate strategies.
Class struggle still gets the goods.
Monday, May 22, 2017
Leadership 2017 Candidate Profile: Jagmeet Singh
As I noted here, Jagmeet Singh's entry into the federal NDP's leadership race has attracted an enviable amount of notice from the media. But the combination of a relatively late start to his formal campaign and a lack of much definition so far does leave Singh with significant ground to make up. And it remains to be seen whether he'll be able to close the gap.
Strengths
In a campaign which hasn't been marked by a lot of public notice, Singh's launch has already attracted more public and media attention than those of the current MPs in the race. And that represents an important factor both in standing out from the crowd of candidates, and in providing opportunities for the NDP as a whole to put its message forward.
Meanwhile, the reasons for the media interest in Singh are also obvious pluses for him. He's well positioned to appeal both to specific audiences (as a regional candidate for urban Ontario, and as a voice for immigrant and non-white Canadians), and to people looking for charisma and professional credentials. And the fact that he's succeeded personally despite a difficult political tide in Ontario's most recent election offers reason for hope he can help the federal NDP do the same.
Weaknesses
The main point missing for Singh so far is any substantial policy focus. He has strong legislative credentials in policy areas including consumer affairs, law enforcement and labour. But none of those issues features prominently in his vague message so far; instead, he's saying little that hasn't been discussed in far more detail by the candidates already in the race.
Some commentators have also raised questions as to whether Singh will be able to maintain Quebec support for the NDP. But I'd consider that a secondary issue - both because he's also provided a well-thought-out answer to it, and because a campaign which succeeds in other areas should be able to convince voters that Singh can be a positive in defending and pursuing Quebec seats as well.
Key Indicator
Singh has already won a few key endorsements unveiled at his campaign launch, including former MP Mylene Freeman. But I'll be particularly interested to see which (if any) current MPs endorse Singh over their current caucus colleagues in the race - and if any substantial number do so, that should be an indicator that Singh will be difficult to stop.
Key Opponent
So far, Singh seems to be doing extremely pursuing both strategies and supporter groups connected to Charlie Angus. Either one should be able to win over supporters of the other based on their positive populist messages - and whichever lasts longer on the ballot should be very well positioned to win.
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: A groundswell of support carrying him to a first-ballot victory
Worst-case: A mid-tier first-ballot showing with little room for growth
Strengths
In a campaign which hasn't been marked by a lot of public notice, Singh's launch has already attracted more public and media attention than those of the current MPs in the race. And that represents an important factor both in standing out from the crowd of candidates, and in providing opportunities for the NDP as a whole to put its message forward.
Meanwhile, the reasons for the media interest in Singh are also obvious pluses for him. He's well positioned to appeal both to specific audiences (as a regional candidate for urban Ontario, and as a voice for immigrant and non-white Canadians), and to people looking for charisma and professional credentials. And the fact that he's succeeded personally despite a difficult political tide in Ontario's most recent election offers reason for hope he can help the federal NDP do the same.
Weaknesses
The main point missing for Singh so far is any substantial policy focus. He has strong legislative credentials in policy areas including consumer affairs, law enforcement and labour. But none of those issues features prominently in his vague message so far; instead, he's saying little that hasn't been discussed in far more detail by the candidates already in the race.
Some commentators have also raised questions as to whether Singh will be able to maintain Quebec support for the NDP. But I'd consider that a secondary issue - both because he's also provided a well-thought-out answer to it, and because a campaign which succeeds in other areas should be able to convince voters that Singh can be a positive in defending and pursuing Quebec seats as well.
Key Indicator
Singh has already won a few key endorsements unveiled at his campaign launch, including former MP Mylene Freeman. But I'll be particularly interested to see which (if any) current MPs endorse Singh over their current caucus colleagues in the race - and if any substantial number do so, that should be an indicator that Singh will be difficult to stop.
Key Opponent
So far, Singh seems to be doing extremely pursuing both strategies and supporter groups connected to Charlie Angus. Either one should be able to win over supporters of the other based on their positive populist messages - and whichever lasts longer on the ballot should be very well positioned to win.
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: A groundswell of support carrying him to a first-ballot victory
Worst-case: A mid-tier first-ballot showing with little room for growth
Leadership 2017 Candidate Profile: Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury
I'll plan to add more to Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury's profile later on if he adds more public-facing content to his campaign. For now, though, I'll put forward at least a placeholder profile based on what's missing.
Strengths
El-Khoury brings at least some political experience to the NDP's leadership race, including past campaigns for an NDP nomination and a City Council seat. And on paper, there would appear to be a niche available for a candidate fitting his profile, including a geographic base in Montreal and private-sector business and economic credentials.
Weaknesses
But given his level of familiarity with the political process (in contrast to, say, Pat Stogran's scramble to assemble the basics of a campaign), it's been disappointing to see very little from El-Khoury beyond his registration with Elections Canada a month and a half ago. The blog he's used for other campaigns remains dormant. And he's taken to Twitter to complain somewhat about a lack of coverage, but done nothing of note to justify it.
In additional to signalling a lack of campaign organization, that also means there's little positive content available even for voters who are looking for it from El-Khoury.
Key Indicator
For now, let's start with the obvious: if El-Khoury can't assemble the resources to put together a substantial campaign presence, his potential pluses don't figure to matter. (I'll update this point if he clears that hurdle.)
Key Opponent
While I mention El-Khoury's potential niche above, it bears some obvious overlap to the strengths of Guy Caron's campaign. And El-Khoury's role when it comes time to vote might include either playing up a set of issues and priorities which works to Caron's advantage, or helping another candidate by offering down-ballot voters a signal that he can also speak to them.
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: A sufficient show of support and campaign strength to establish a place for El-Khoury as a key voice within the NDP
Worst-case: A distant last place as his campaign never gets off the ground
Strengths
El-Khoury brings at least some political experience to the NDP's leadership race, including past campaigns for an NDP nomination and a City Council seat. And on paper, there would appear to be a niche available for a candidate fitting his profile, including a geographic base in Montreal and private-sector business and economic credentials.
Weaknesses
But given his level of familiarity with the political process (in contrast to, say, Pat Stogran's scramble to assemble the basics of a campaign), it's been disappointing to see very little from El-Khoury beyond his registration with Elections Canada a month and a half ago. The blog he's used for other campaigns remains dormant. And he's taken to Twitter to complain somewhat about a lack of coverage, but done nothing of note to justify it.
In additional to signalling a lack of campaign organization, that also means there's little positive content available even for voters who are looking for it from El-Khoury.
Key Indicator
For now, let's start with the obvious: if El-Khoury can't assemble the resources to put together a substantial campaign presence, his potential pluses don't figure to matter. (I'll update this point if he clears that hurdle.)
Key Opponent
While I mention El-Khoury's potential niche above, it bears some obvious overlap to the strengths of Guy Caron's campaign. And El-Khoury's role when it comes time to vote might include either playing up a set of issues and priorities which works to Caron's advantage, or helping another candidate by offering down-ballot voters a signal that he can also speak to them.
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: A sufficient show of support and campaign strength to establish a place for El-Khoury as a key voice within the NDP
Worst-case: A distant last place as his campaign never gets off the ground
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.
- Paul Krugman criticizes the use of non-compete agreements to trap workers at low wage levels with no opportunity to pursue comparable employment - as well as the Republicans' insistence on pushing employer-based health care which further limits workers' options:
- Geoff Dembicki points out how Canada's overheating real estate markets are more the result of domestic speculation than foreign investment - even if the political response has been oriented almost solely toward the latter.
- Ashley Martin reports on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour's call for employers to ensure that work requirements don't trap people suffering domestic violence. And L.E. Reimer points out how the Saskatchewan Party's shuttering of STC will be particularly hard on women with low incomes who will lose a needed means of transportation.
- Finally, the Star's editorial board calls for Ontario's provincial government to finally reverse a multi-decade trend of reduced access to music and arts education in public schools.
- Paul Krugman criticizes the use of non-compete agreements to trap workers at low wage levels with no opportunity to pursue comparable employment - as well as the Republicans' insistence on pushing employer-based health care which further limits workers' options:
At this point, in other words, noncompete clauses are in many cases less about protecting trade secrets than they are about tying workers to their current employers, unable to bargain for better wages or quit to take better jobs.- Jim Edwards highlights how in the wake of deliberate attacks on workers' bargaining power, low unemployment rates aren't producing the wage gains which would normally be expected. And Linda Gorman's look at global corporate savings makes it clear that the extra money kept in corporate hands is being hoarded rather than put to productive use.
This shouldn’t be happening in America, and to be fair some politicians in both parties have been speaking up about the need for change (although few expect the Trump administration to follow up on the Obama administration’s reform push). But there’s another aspect of declining worker freedom that is very much a partisan issue: health care.
Until 2014, there was basically only one way Americans under 65 with pre-existing conditions could get health insurance: by finding an employer willing to offer coverage. Some employers were in fact willing to do so. Why? Because there were major tax advantages — premiums aren’t counted as taxable income — but to get those advantages employer plans must offer the same coverage to every employee, regardless of medical history.
But what if you wanted to change jobs, or start your own business? Too bad: you were basically stuck (and I knew quite a few people in that position).
...
You might say, with only a bit of hyperbole, that workers in America, supposedly the land of the free, are actually creeping along the road to serfdom, yoked to corporate employers the way Russian peasants were once tied to their masters’ land. And the people pushing them down that road are the very people who cry “freedom” the loudest.
- Geoff Dembicki points out how Canada's overheating real estate markets are more the result of domestic speculation than foreign investment - even if the political response has been oriented almost solely toward the latter.
- Ashley Martin reports on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour's call for employers to ensure that work requirements don't trap people suffering domestic violence. And L.E. Reimer points out how the Saskatchewan Party's shuttering of STC will be particularly hard on women with low incomes who will lose a needed means of transportation.
- Finally, the Star's editorial board calls for Ontario's provincial government to finally reverse a multi-decade trend of reduced access to music and arts education in public schools.
Labels:
corporatism,
domestic violence,
economy,
education,
gender issues,
labour,
ontario libs,
paul krugman,
real estate,
stc,
the star,
wages
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Josh Bivens notes that U.S. corporations are already paying a lower share of taxes than has historically been the case - meaning that there's no air of reality to the claim that handing them more money will produce any positive economic results. And Noah Smith writes that public infrastructure spending would do far more than tax cuts to improve economic outcomes.
- Angella MacEwen discusses how NAFTA (like other trade agreements) has served largely to drive down labour and employment standards among all participants. And Michal Rozworski counters some of the corporatist myths being peddled in opposition to a fair minimum wage.
- Trevor Hancock reminds us of the outrageous levels of child poverty in Canada. Kings' College Investigative Workshop examines the woeful lack of mental health services in Nova Scotia.
- CBC reports on the Saskatchewan Environmental Society's push for the province to do its part in fighting climate change, while Abacus finds that Canadians in general recognize the need to transition away from fossil fuels. And Erin Weir points out that instead of inventing complaints about what the federal government might do, Brad Wall would be better served pointing out how the Libs are actively underfunding transit in Saskatchewan.
- Finally, Rebecca Joseph and Jim Bronskill report on the continued public demand to repeal Bill C-51 and rein in the unaccountable surveillance state. And Matthew Behrens discusses his experience as a target of an "anti-terrorist" investigation.
- Josh Bivens notes that U.S. corporations are already paying a lower share of taxes than has historically been the case - meaning that there's no air of reality to the claim that handing them more money will produce any positive economic results. And Noah Smith writes that public infrastructure spending would do far more than tax cuts to improve economic outcomes.
- Angella MacEwen discusses how NAFTA (like other trade agreements) has served largely to drive down labour and employment standards among all participants. And Michal Rozworski counters some of the corporatist myths being peddled in opposition to a fair minimum wage.
- Trevor Hancock reminds us of the outrageous levels of child poverty in Canada. Kings' College Investigative Workshop examines the woeful lack of mental health services in Nova Scotia.
- CBC reports on the Saskatchewan Environmental Society's push for the province to do its part in fighting climate change, while Abacus finds that Canadians in general recognize the need to transition away from fossil fuels. And Erin Weir points out that instead of inventing complaints about what the federal government might do, Brad Wall would be better served pointing out how the Libs are actively underfunding transit in Saskatchewan.
- Finally, Rebecca Joseph and Jim Bronskill report on the continued public demand to repeal Bill C-51 and rein in the unaccountable surveillance state. And Matthew Behrens discusses his experience as a target of an "anti-terrorist" investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





