(C)aught in a barrage of scandals, manipulations and abuses of trust, not to mention being judged in contempt of Parliament, the prime minister’s defence is that everybody does it, so it’s no big deal.
Thus, there is no more even the pretence of principle, and not even the hollowest political rhetoric promising improvement. By definition, the sovereign can do no wrong, and the subject is taboo. Harper is now, by his own admission, calculating that the decline of the democratic instinct is to his political advantage, and he’s encouraging it. If people don’t vote out of disgust, good. That increases the voting weight of his zealous base. Governmental ethics may be in a fetid swamp, but who cares?
...
You may have noted that the decent guys in the Harper government aren’t running again — Chuck Strahl, Jay Hill, Jim Prentice, Stockwell Day — leaving the ship ever more firmly in charge of the hachetmen from the old Mike Harris government in Ontario, running things with their Bush/Cheney handbook. If we vote for this (or worse, not vote at all) we’ll get the government we deserve. Are we that pathetic?
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Well said
Ralph Surette slams the Cons' principle-free politics, but points out who holds the ultimate responsibility to end them:
Saturday Afternoon Links
Content goes here.
- Plenty of others have already pointed out Gerald Caplan's column on the work of Con Senators to keep AIDS drugs from reaching Africa. But let's note that the single vote on C-393 was the least of the problems with an unaccountable and easily-abused chamber that's taken both flaws to extremes since Stephen Harper took power:
- Also to be ignored in the interest of better serving our benevolently-self-interested overlords: the NDP's latest ad challenging the Harper Cons' record of corporate giveaways.
- Andrew Coyne offers up a prescription for more substantive and fairer election debates:
- Plenty of others have already pointed out Gerald Caplan's column on the work of Con Senators to keep AIDS drugs from reaching Africa. But let's note that the single vote on C-393 was the least of the problems with an unaccountable and easily-abused chamber that's taken both flaws to extremes since Stephen Harper took power:
Let me readily acknowledge that for my entire life I’ve believed the Senate, a wholly undemocratic 19th century institution, should be abolished and I have never understood how anyone could accept an appointment to it. But I’ve always seen how appealing it is. After all, you’re suddenly handed on a platter one of the great gigs this country offers – a fancy title, instant status, a minimum $123,000 a year plus expense accounts, air travel, pension and optional attendance. Or a high-profile forum if you choose to use it, as a few admirable senators do.- Pay no attention to that inconvenient Nobel laureate and his take on what actually drives business investment. People for Corporate Tax Cuts forever!!!
But to whom are senators responsible, if anyone? How do they decide what positions to support or oppose? They’re appointed by the Prime Minister personally and usually carry his party affiliation but they supposedly serve the country, or so it’s claimed. Do they show their eternal gratitude to this one man, which would make them simple hacks, or have they a higher duty to the public good? This is a genuine choice, and Bill C-393 gave us the pathetic answer when a majority of senators chose to slavishly follow the party line. All were Conservatives, no fewer than 35 of them appointed by Stephen Harper in violation of every word he ever uttered about the illegitimacy of an appointed Senate. But that was before he became PM.
There’s hypocrisy upon hypocrisy piling up here. Last November, for the first time in 70 years, this same Conservative-dominated Senate, without a hearing or debate, killed a climate-change bill that had been passed by a majority of elected MPs in the House of Commons. It was a bill Stephen Harper hated – he’s still mostly a global warming denier – and it was at his command that his senators transgressed against democracy, accountability, common sense and the future of our children all at the same time.
- Also to be ignored in the interest of better serving our benevolently-self-interested overlords: the NDP's latest ad challenging the Harper Cons' record of corporate giveaways.
- Andrew Coyne offers up a prescription for more substantive and fairer election debates:
I’d like there to be several debates, perhaps one a week for the course of the campaign. That would take away some of the prize-fight nonsense: we would be less obsessed with who “won” or “lost” the debate, as if that were an indication of anything, and more concerned with what we learned about each leader and their positions on the issues, which surely ought to be the point. The leaders, in turn, would be less wired and over-rehearsed if they knew they could recover from a bad performance in subsequent debates.- Gavin Friddell interviews Trevor Norris on the role of advertising in dumbing down politics and other personal decisions:
...
Holding more debates, each of them bilingual, would open the way for other innovations. Perhaps some of the debates could be devoted to particular subjects. Perhaps instead of just the leaders, they could be between the critics for a given portfolio. Perhaps we could experiment with different formats. And so on.
Best of all, more debates would give the media something to talk about, besides gaffes, and photo-ops, and broken-down bus metaphors. I can’t see us changing otherwise.
Anyway. Whatever format we choose, whatever rules we set, they should be set outside the confines of any one election campaign. We have to stop pretending that televised debates are some sort of novelty. They’ve been with us for 50 years, and are now as integral to any election campaign as lawn signs and all-candidates meetings. It’s time they were incorporated into the election laws.
To be sure, the parties would have their say: there’s no way of setting rules that could not involve them. But if no party knew where it stood in the polls — if the rules were set behind a Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” — then it should be possible to agreed on rules that were fair to all, and accepted as such.
(R)egarding citizenship, consumerism relentlessly promotes infantile values and world views, such as instant gratification, easy commodified solutions rather than those requiring more sustained efforts, and so on. Infantalization is how consumerism compromises democracy because it turns citizens into children.- Finally, while I've stayed out of the debate over CBC's Vote Compass, Simon Kiss' guest post at Pundit's Guide looks to fairly thoroughly evisecerate any sense that the compass is accurate in its treatment of NDP and Green preferences.
It is ironic that we don't let people vote unless they are of a certain age, and yet most advertising promotes infantile identities! So the innocence of childhood is compromised by consumerism even as consumerism promotes infantility among adults.
On depoliticization
It may not have made for the most glamorous policy announcement, particularly compared to the free money the Cons and Libs are promising to fling around at some point in the future. But in an election where the question of whether we can expect better government hasn't yet been met with answers as to what one might look like, the NDP's good governance plan is worth some discussion (emphasis in original):
Mind you, all parties seem to recognize some need to fix Ottawa - with even the sitting government effectively running on major change in who exercises power and under what terms, while the Libs complain about the Harper government without being able to claim that they'd do anything differently. But the NDP stands alone among the national parties in Parliament in having a plan to do something about it - meaning that the choice should be clear for voters concerned about good government.
The New Democrat plan will:Of particular note is the fact that even as it's pushing for a place in government (whether on its own or as part of a coalition), the NDP is still raising ideas which would limit the abuse of politically-appointed positions. Needless to say, that stands in stark contrast to the Cons' brand of "accountability", which wound up resulting in closer scrutiny for nearly everybody in the public sector except those actually wielding political power.
1. End partisan meddling in professional public service by establishing a code of conduct for ministerial staff, capping partisan appointments of “special advisors” and establishing merit-based public appointments.
2. Respect Public Service employees by improving legislative protection for whistleblowers and strengthening oversight of the Integrity Commissioner.
3. Create real public service jobs instead of relying on temporary help services; modernize hiring mechanisms in consultation with employee unions and managers.
Mind you, all parties seem to recognize some need to fix Ottawa - with even the sitting government effectively running on major change in who exercises power and under what terms, while the Libs complain about the Harper government without being able to claim that they'd do anything differently. But the NDP stands alone among the national parties in Parliament in having a plan to do something about it - meaning that the choice should be clear for voters concerned about good government.
The longer view
Following up on yesterday's post, apparently the ultimate significance of majority support for a coalition seems to have been lost on some. So let's take a moment and remind ourselves that contrary to what might seem to be the case in the midst of a campaign, Canadian politics won't come to an end on election day.
Indeed, the most likely outcome when the campaign concludes still looks to be one along the lines of where Canada politics have been stuck for the past five years - with the Cons likely in first place in the party standings, but with no natural allies among the parties forming a majority of the House of Commons. And with Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff utterly at odds as to what options are available under those circumstances (with Harper describing a coalition as inevitable while Ignatieff foolishly tries to rule it out), what happens afterward is what will determine who forms the next government.
And on that front, surely we haven't yet forgotten the Cons' plans from 2008: to try to override the effects of a valid non-confidence vote by claiming that "the people" supported their desire to stay in power. Which looks like a rather difficult trick to pull off if "the people" are at worst evenly split on which formation they prefer.
Granted, if Harper can win the vote of every respondent who prefers a majority to a coalition, then the Cons have reason to be happy. But if he can't - and the very same poll shows that a key bloc of respondents fitting that description still plan to support a party other than the Cons - then the latest results suggest that any attempt to go "to the people" to override the majority of the MPs they've elected is doomed to failure.
Indeed, the most likely outcome when the campaign concludes still looks to be one along the lines of where Canada politics have been stuck for the past five years - with the Cons likely in first place in the party standings, but with no natural allies among the parties forming a majority of the House of Commons. And with Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff utterly at odds as to what options are available under those circumstances (with Harper describing a coalition as inevitable while Ignatieff foolishly tries to rule it out), what happens afterward is what will determine who forms the next government.
And on that front, surely we haven't yet forgotten the Cons' plans from 2008: to try to override the effects of a valid non-confidence vote by claiming that "the people" supported their desire to stay in power. Which looks like a rather difficult trick to pull off if "the people" are at worst evenly split on which formation they prefer.
Granted, if Harper can win the vote of every respondent who prefers a majority to a coalition, then the Cons have reason to be happy. But if he can't - and the very same poll shows that a key bloc of respondents fitting that description still plan to support a party other than the Cons - then the latest results suggest that any attempt to go "to the people" to override the majority of the MPs they've elected is doomed to failure.
Friday, April 01, 2011
On majority support
If there's anything surprising about the latest polling on coalitions, it's that a majority of respondents have come around to supporting the idea even with the two largest federal parties going out of their way to delegitimize it.
But it shouldn't be news to anybody that the Cons' attacks have proven a failure in the long run. And with a coalition led by Jack Layton looking like a particularly popular possibility, Michael Ignatieff may soon have to revisit whether he's willing to lead a coalition - lest his party's supporters decide that one led by Layton is preferable to another term of Stephen Harper in power.
But it shouldn't be news to anybody that the Cons' attacks have proven a failure in the long run. And with a coalition led by Jack Layton looking like a particularly popular possibility, Michael Ignatieff may soon have to revisit whether he's willing to lead a coalition - lest his party's supporters decide that one led by Layton is preferable to another term of Stephen Harper in power.
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Purple Library Guy highlights the internal inconsistency behind regressive economics:
- David Olive joins the parade of commentators who have rightly concluded that they've had enough of the Harper Cons' contempt and deception:
- Finally, Scott Feschuk documents the tragicomedy of errors that's been the first week of the election campaign for the Cons.
- Purple Library Guy highlights the internal inconsistency behind regressive economics:
If you hold onto the "poor people are poor because they make sub-optimal choices" claim but admit that means free markets will not be efficient, then a compassionate person would suggest that if the economy isn't going to be efficient anyway it should at least try to take care of people. If you hold onto the efficient markets, then people's poverty must happen to them despite their making optimal choices, in which case you have to start wondering just what the "efficiency" is for.- And both Jeffrey Simpson and David MacDonald rightly criticize the Cons' efforts to make our tax system even more regressive.
These ideas can both be false, and in the real world they are. But they can't both be true; right wing economics combined with right wing justifications for poverty involve a basic contradiction.
- David Olive joins the parade of commentators who have rightly concluded that they've had enough of the Harper Cons' contempt and deception:
Since we've not challenged Harper on his past, we're all condemned to relive it. In the fake costing of 65 jet-fighter planes (Harper cost, $17 billion; real cost, $29 billion) to the non-costing of new and expanded prisons that would be required by Harper's proposed tougher sentencing guidelines. (The outside estimates are roughly $9 billion.) It was a vote on that contempt of the people's house, and not the budget, that brought this government down last Friday.- Saskboy is looking for a consensus around the idea of "more debates, not fewer debates". I for one couldn't agree more strongly with the idea.
But this episode is astonishing, a Harper rewrite of events that unfolded just yesterday. To the question of how far Harper will go in insulting the voters, there is no apparent answer.
- Finally, Scott Feschuk documents the tragicomedy of errors that's been the first week of the election campaign for the Cons.
Never enough now
Shorter Murray Mandryk:
It should be obvious to anybody with an iota of concern for democratic discussion that unnecessarily excluding voices from official election debates is unconscionable. But it's bad news for Dwain Lingenfelter that he's taken exactly that position.
It should be obvious to anybody with an iota of concern for democratic discussion that unnecessarily excluding voices from official election debates is unconscionable. But it's bad news for Dwain Lingenfelter that he's taken exactly that position.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thursday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Jim Stanford challenges the Cons' spin on how Canada's economy compares to others around the globe:
- Douglas Bell reminds us of the simple truth behind a possible coalition government:
- Jim Stanford challenges the Cons' spin on how Canada's economy compares to others around the globe:
In reality,...the claim that things may be tough here, but they’re better than anywhere else, has never been statistically valid. And it’s getting increasingly inaccurate, the more it is regurgitated on the hustings.- Fortunately, there are some competing visions on what parts of our economy need to be emphasized. And Andrew Jackson sums up the NDP's economic proposals, including by noting that the job-creation tax credit has been on the radar in the U.S. as well.
Among the more than 30 industrial countries that make up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada’s performance has been middling at best. In real GDP growth, Canada tied for 10th in 2009, falling to 13th in 2010. As for the unemployment rate, Canada ranked a gloomy 21st in 2009, tying for 18th by 2010.
Since OECD countries account for a declining share of total world output, let’s consider a truly global sample. The International Monetary Fund reports annual real GDP growth rates for 107 countries, and quarterly data for about half of those. In 2009, Canada ranked 61st of 107. Over the first three-quarters of 2010 (year-end figures aren’t ready yet), we ranked 25th out of 53 countries reporting.
In labour-market terms, Canada’s relative performance is no better. The International Labour Organization reports unemployment data for about 70 countries. In 2009, Canada’s unemployment rate jumped 2.2 percentage points. That ranked us 56th (of 72) that year. Over the first three quarters of 2010, Canada ranked 28th by the same measure.
That’s not exactly a gold-medal performance. In fact, it sounds more like our ranking in international soccer (84th in the world, according to FIFA), than our glorious domination of world hockey.
- Douglas Bell reminds us of the simple truth behind a possible coalition government:
(John Ibbitson writes) about the dangers lurking should the Liberals having won fewer seats than the Tories buck “the popular will” and form a coalition government with the NDP. But here’s the thing, two out of three Canadians voted against the Tories the last time around (and will again if Nanos the soothsayer proves correct).- And finally, Joyce Green and Mike Burton weigh in with their take on the Cons' many displays of contempt for Canadian democracy:
The popular will as expressed in one party or another seeking the confidence of the House is clear.
This latest expression of contempt of the government for its parliament and its peoples is an indication of poor democratic health, but it is only one of a number of manifestations of that malaise. The widening gap between the very rich and the working and very poor is another measure of democratic and moral failure. The increase in propaganda at the expense of environmental science is another. The demonization of political opponents is a third. The lack of a serious medium and long term national economic strategy, other than obeisance to "the markets," is a fourth. The lack of policy attention to the social supports we all need, such as childcare, elder care, palliative care, and rational affordable health care is a fifth. Our collective inability to provide appropriate education, from post-secondary education to the trades, is risible. Our national lack of concern for Aboriginal peoples is an international embarrassment. We could go on.
...
The consequence of toxic levels of anti-democratic contempt has left many Canadians questioning the health of public politics. But they must do more than sit back on the sofa and change the channel. That would be contemptible. As we watch brave people in the Arab Spring risk life and well-being to obtain democratic change, we may want to collectively maintain our own democratic practices with rather more vigour.
On consistency
Most of the stories about the NDP's campaign policy announcements in #elxn41 have included a line or two about previous incarnations of similar proposals. And with good reason: the party has talked about ideas like eliminating subsidies for the tar sands and reining in credit card rates and fees for quite some time, so it shouldn't come as any particular surprise to see them front and centre in an election campaign.
In contrast, having concluded that their problem in 2008 was a combination of unpopular policies and too much eagerness to make them public, the Libs are largely starting from scratch in this year's election - indeed reversing course on a large number of issues compared to last time out. And having been in government for the past give years, the Cons too are mostly introducing new policies dating back no further than this month's budget (indeed, it shouldn't escape notice that they seem to be making far more new policy announcements than they did in 2008).
Based on that difference, the current campaign may make for a useful test of the question of whether a party is best off working publicly on policy priorities over a period of years so as to build both familiarity and popularity, or instead using policy more as something to talk about during an election which may never be spoken about again. And it's worth wondering which of those choices we want parties to make in commenting on policy as it's unveiled.
In contrast, having concluded that their problem in 2008 was a combination of unpopular policies and too much eagerness to make them public, the Libs are largely starting from scratch in this year's election - indeed reversing course on a large number of issues compared to last time out. And having been in government for the past give years, the Cons too are mostly introducing new policies dating back no further than this month's budget (indeed, it shouldn't escape notice that they seem to be making far more new policy announcements than they did in 2008).
Based on that difference, the current campaign may make for a useful test of the question of whether a party is best off working publicly on policy priorities over a period of years so as to build both familiarity and popularity, or instead using policy more as something to talk about during an election which may never be spoken about again. And it's worth wondering which of those choices we want parties to make in commenting on policy as it's unveiled.
Thursday Morning Riding Links
Stephen Harper will not be taking questions about any of the below.
- For at least a couple of election cycles, one of the names floated as a possible star NDP candidate in Quebec has been Romeo Saganash. And while it's probably not ideal to only have him in place in a campaign that's already underway (particular in an immense riding), his introduction as the NDP's candidate in Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou should nonetheless make the seat into another of the NDP's top targets in the province.
- Graham Thomson tees off on the Cons' disorganization and contempt for outsiders in Edmonton Strathcona:
- For at least a couple of election cycles, one of the names floated as a possible star NDP candidate in Quebec has been Romeo Saganash. And while it's probably not ideal to only have him in place in a campaign that's already underway (particular in an immense riding), his introduction as the NDP's candidate in Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou should nonetheless make the seat into another of the NDP's top targets in the province.
- Graham Thomson tees off on the Cons' disorganization and contempt for outsiders in Edmonton Strathcona:
It's still early in the election and a lot can happen in the next month. But at this point, the Hastman campaign is behaving like a campaign in trouble. For all the talk of a new, young candidate, Hastman is right now behaving like the same old politicians we've seen so many times before -unaccountable, silent, absent.- And Murray Mandryk notes that at least some Cons in Regina aren't standing idly by while being silenced by their party:
I suppose, if nothing else, he's displaying the necessary qualifications to be another backbencher in a Conservative government.
Former Saskatchewan Party MLA Jason Dearborn -one of those once interested in the Regina Wascana nomination -has written a commentary raising concerns about the above process and wondering if this was a "direct attempt to suppress the democratic process...perpetrated by unelected party staff intent on controlling a tight message for national consumption."- Finally, if you're looking to figure out which parties are actually involved in races in various regions of the country rather than buying into the false assumption that only the Cons and Libs matter, Alice charts the two-way races that actually took place across the country in the previous four election cycles. And perhaps the most noteworthy change is that the NDP has entirely lived up to its promise to challenge the Harper Cons at every turn: while its 2004 two-way races involved 45 against the Libs to only 24 against the Cons, by 2008 those numbers had changed to 30 and 70 respectively.
Other Conservatives are -at least privately -far more pointed, talking about the Darth Vader-like control of Harper and the nastiness of the staff that surround him. "They're just a bunch of mean buggers," said one Conservative, seeking anonymity for fear of retaliation.
On limited questions
Greg has already commented on the Cons' sudden refusal to discuss anything that happens at the riding level. But let's add a couple more points to the discussion.
First, this may be the most blatant example yet of Harper trying to micromanage the media with no justification: surely it's not up to a politician to determine what questions the media is entitled to ask. And so I'd hope that the few journalists who get a chance to ask questions will either ignore the dictate, or better yet challenge it directly.
That said, the restriction does leave some obvious room for discussion.
First, there's the possibility of questions dealing with similar issues at the national level. And while I agree with Greg that a restriction on that point is probably the next step, it would seem to be well worth the media's while to get in their questions about national Con figures participating in the campaign under questionable circumstances (i.e. Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein) while they still can.
More importantly, though, if Dimitri Soudas is telling the media to ask questions about local campaigns at the local level, then anybody following those instructions should expect to get an immediate response that doesn't have to be run through the party's war room. And if and when that proves not to be the case, then there's every reason to double back to the subject with yet another example of complete dishonesty in hand.
First, this may be the most blatant example yet of Harper trying to micromanage the media with no justification: surely it's not up to a politician to determine what questions the media is entitled to ask. And so I'd hope that the few journalists who get a chance to ask questions will either ignore the dictate, or better yet challenge it directly.
That said, the restriction does leave some obvious room for discussion.
First, there's the possibility of questions dealing with similar issues at the national level. And while I agree with Greg that a restriction on that point is probably the next step, it would seem to be well worth the media's while to get in their questions about national Con figures participating in the campaign under questionable circumstances (i.e. Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein) while they still can.
More importantly, though, if Dimitri Soudas is telling the media to ask questions about local campaigns at the local level, then anybody following those instructions should expect to get an immediate response that doesn't have to be run through the party's war room. And if and when that proves not to be the case, then there's every reason to double back to the subject with yet another example of complete dishonesty in hand.
New column day
Here, on why Canadians should vote out of self-interest if nothing else - and why we can't count on political parties to make it happen.
And for reference on the motivations of political parties, I'll point to Warren Kinsella's advice to war room staffers (caps and italics included):
And for reference on the motivations of political parties, I'll point to Warren Kinsella's advice to war room staffers (caps and italics included):
What does a war room do? As I have told every youngster who falls into my clutches at the start of every campaign, OUR JOB IS NOT TO WIN THE WHOLE CAMPAIGN BY OURSELVES. Instead, I tell them, yelling entirely in caps, our job IS TO WRECK THE OTHER SIDE’S CAMPAIGN DAY, ONE DAY AT A TIME. And, if you do that for nine days out of a 36-day writ, you have eliminated the other side’s ability to tell their story for a quarter of the campaign. And that’s a campaign that cannot win. Thus, poor Sebastien Togneri. The hapless Tory aide, being probed by the RCMP, helped the Liberal war room to stomp all over Harper’s message of the day on Tuesday. That’s a win, in my books.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
By way of illustration
Following up on this post, let's consider a couple of hypothetical questions about the election which most clearly highlights the absurdity of allowing two party leaders to take the national stage for themselves by choosing to exclude all others from a debate.
Suppose the 1993 election had seen a similar debate procedure, with the Libs and PCs choosing to square off against each other while leaving the NDP, Bloc and Reform out of the picture.
Would the end result then have been that the "real contenders" debate would have been presented an entirely misleading two-way choice, including a party which ultimately wound up in fifth place?
Or would it have been that the seat counts would have changed, as the ideas which in fact won out over those of the PCs were suppressed rather than being compared directly in one of the most important phases of the campaign?
And can either of those alternatives be seen as a remotely acceptable development?
Suppose the 1993 election had seen a similar debate procedure, with the Libs and PCs choosing to square off against each other while leaving the NDP, Bloc and Reform out of the picture.
Would the end result then have been that the "real contenders" debate would have been presented an entirely misleading two-way choice, including a party which ultimately wound up in fifth place?
Or would it have been that the seat counts would have changed, as the ideas which in fact won out over those of the PCs were suppressed rather than being compared directly in one of the most important phases of the campaign?
And can either of those alternatives be seen as a remotely acceptable development?
The false dichotomy coalition
The two party leaders who are going out of their way to present a false binary choice to Canadian voters are both eager to exclude the rest of Canada's party leaders from a debate in order to reinforce that spin. Who could have guessed?
On family situations
Kevin Milligan makes a case as to why income taxes should be applied at the family level. But I can't help but think that his argument actually describes precisely why income splitting is about the worst possible tool to do so:
In effect, Milligan looks to be making a case to make a general practice of adding all household incomes, and applying income taxes to the total. Which may well be worth some further discussion - but suggests that income splitting to provide added benefits to families with a single high earner is utterly misguided.
One of the goals of income taxation is to -- gently or more forcefully, depending on your taste -- soften the inequalities generated by the market distribution of wellbeing. But does someone’s wellbeing depend on their family situation? For example, if someone is earning $20,000 per year and living alone, is that person better or worse off than someone with the same income living with a spouse earning $100,000? It seems likely that the ability to share food, housing, and other costs renders the person with a high-earning spouse better off. These family circumstances push toward the argument that the family is the right unit to measure wellbeing. Ignoring one’s family situation -- as strict individual taxation would do -- seems like we would be throwing away important information for assessing wellbeing.Of course, the problem with income splitting is that it doesn't "soften" the presumed advantage of the individual with a high-earning spouse at all. Instead, it rewards the individual with a high-earning spouse by allowing an election to apply a lower rate to the spouse's higher earnings - while the individual earning $20,000 on his or her own gets no opportunity to turn that low income into a tax advantage.
In effect, Milligan looks to be making a case to make a general practice of adding all household incomes, and applying income taxes to the total. Which may well be worth some further discussion - but suggests that income splitting to provide added benefits to families with a single high earner is utterly misguided.
Wednesday Morning Links
Assorted content for your mid-week reading.
- Gregory Lang makes the case for targeted tax breaks designed to encourage the types of corporate activity we most want to see, rather than constant slashing of general corporate tax rates in hopes that it will produce the desired results:
- Finally, I'm not sure that shaming and scolding the public is quite the best way to go. But David Akin's appeal to Canadians to vote is nonetheless worth a read.
- Gregory Lang makes the case for targeted tax breaks designed to encourage the types of corporate activity we most want to see, rather than constant slashing of general corporate tax rates in hopes that it will produce the desired results:
The variance between corporate income tax rates and the actual tax corporations pay represents the tool kit of social policy and the means to support every corporation in becoming a better corporate citizen. Low corporate income tax rates necessarily mean that tax-benefit incentives are less valuable to the corporation. For example, capital equipment investment tax write-offs are more attractive the higher the corporate income tax rate.- Which leads nicely to the NDP's proposal to target tax breaks toward businesses who actually create jobs:
Tax credits and other tax accounting “loopholes” simultaneously provide a government with mechanisms to influence the competitive conditions in our economy and may also be the least expensive and most effective regulatory tools available. Environmental policy and carbon emission regulations, for example, while now seeming “so last recess,” can be more effectively implemented when the incentive for the corporation is lower actual taxes instead of increased regulations. Corporations are already keenly aware of their bottom line, and an available tax policy that serves to improve it will be pursued when it makes economic sense for them to do so.
High corporate income tax rates, along with aggressive social policy-driven tax accounting benefits, can create the conditions for the lowest effective corporate tax burden and the most efficient social policy mechanisms in the world.
Zero corporate income tax has merit only where every citizen is employed and paying personal income and sales taxes. The tax burden must fall somewhere. High corporate income tax rates, along with social policy-based tax credits, can create the conditions for zero corporate taxes payable – when corporations cause zero unemployment.
...
Low corporate income tax rates are both an unsustainable “cost” advantage globally and a disincentive to innovation for other competitive advantages. Low corporate income tax rates empty the proverbial social policy tool box and make our economy less flexible. And with less flexibility, we inherently increase our risk of succumbing to catastrophic failure: an economic recession.
If the NDP formed the government, Mr. Layton said he would cut the small business tax rate to 9 per cent from 11 per cent. But he would also boost the corporate tax rate to the 2008 level of 19.5 per cent from its current 16.5 per cent.- Sure, the fact that it's sex-scandal-ridden Bruce Carson makes for a nice addition to the story. But shouldn't it be enough of an embarrassment for the Cons that a member of Stephen Harper's inner circle specifically worked to turn an environmental research group funded by millions of public dollars into a PR front for the tar sands?
...
“I’ll ensure that Canada’s corporate tax rate contributes to our competitive edge,” Mr. Layton said. But the Conservative “money for nothing” scheme has led to the disappearance of 600,000 “family-supporting, highly skilled” jobs, “many of them in communities like Oshawa.”
The New Democrats would also bring in a job creation tax credit for employers of $4,500 for every new hire. And they would extend the capital cost allowances for the next four years.
- Finally, I'm not sure that shaming and scolding the public is quite the best way to go. But David Akin's appeal to Canadians to vote is nonetheless worth a read.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
On brand challenges
The NDP has unveiled its first election ad, featuring one noteworthy continuation from past campaigns and one direct (if subtle) attack on the Cons' brand:
Now, the first point worth noting is the NDP's continued choice to keep its election ads playful, following in the footsteps of the 2008 Chalk Talk theme with a bright colour scheme and deliberately unsophisticated animation at the start of the ad. That makes for a direct contrast against anything on offer from the Libs or Cons - serving at the very least to set the NDP apart from its competitors, but also raising the possibility that a lighter touch may make a policy attack more effective.
And that leads to the most interesting element of the ad - being the choice to focus on the story of Tim Horton's being used as an emergency room, rather than any other example of a need for change in Canada's health-care system.
On its face, that focus looks like a curious one, as there are probably more stark stories to make the case for greater investment in health care. But it does give rise to a golden opportunity to turn the Cons' brand against them: while Harper tries to paint himself as a Tim Hortons politician, the NDP wants to make sure that any association between the Cons and a basic element of their preferred brand instead leads voters to think of a crumbling health care system under Harper.
That might not seem to be an issue at the moment, as the Cons haven't used the Tim Hortons line as much recently as they did in previous campaigns. But with the Tim Hortons/Starbucks coffee contrast serving as one of their favourite shorthands to define Harper in comparison to Michael Ignatieff, they may not be able to resist as the campaign goes on - which may help the NDP's opening message to last throughout the election campaign.
Now, the first point worth noting is the NDP's continued choice to keep its election ads playful, following in the footsteps of the 2008 Chalk Talk theme with a bright colour scheme and deliberately unsophisticated animation at the start of the ad. That makes for a direct contrast against anything on offer from the Libs or Cons - serving at the very least to set the NDP apart from its competitors, but also raising the possibility that a lighter touch may make a policy attack more effective.
And that leads to the most interesting element of the ad - being the choice to focus on the story of Tim Horton's being used as an emergency room, rather than any other example of a need for change in Canada's health-care system.
On its face, that focus looks like a curious one, as there are probably more stark stories to make the case for greater investment in health care. But it does give rise to a golden opportunity to turn the Cons' brand against them: while Harper tries to paint himself as a Tim Hortons politician, the NDP wants to make sure that any association between the Cons and a basic element of their preferred brand instead leads voters to think of a crumbling health care system under Harper.
That might not seem to be an issue at the moment, as the Cons haven't used the Tim Hortons line as much recently as they did in previous campaigns. But with the Tim Hortons/Starbucks coffee contrast serving as one of their favourite shorthands to define Harper in comparison to Michael Ignatieff, they may not be able to resist as the campaign goes on - which may help the NDP's opening message to last throughout the election campaign.
Tuesday Morning Links
Some general reading to start your day.
- Armine Yalnizyan chimes in on the problems with the Cons' income-splitting plank:
- After accurately describing Stephen Harper as "a bit chilling...(in) his willingness to self-righteously attack his opponents for things that he would do himself" and exhibiting "excessive aggressiveness", and Michael Ignatieff as "ill-prepared" with a "confusion" stance on coalitions, Stephen Maher has this to say about Jack Layton:
- Finally, as much as the Cons have been slammed for trying to act like a majority government even with only a minority of seats, Murray Dobbin points out that matters could indeed get worse if they actually held the majority they're shooting for:
- Armine Yalnizyan chimes in on the problems with the Cons' income-splitting plank:
But the families that will most benefit from Harper’s income splitting promise will be those who need the least help. The higher the income, the bigger the tax break, and a much lesser challenge of keeping one parent at home.- Meanwhile, the CCPA has unveiled its new Making it Count blog - which looks to be a must-read for the balance of the campaign.
...
Today’s reality is that it is getting harder for young families to get into and stay in the middle class. Today, with rare exceptions, it takes two to do it. We need policies that meaningfully address that reality.
- After accurately describing Stephen Harper as "a bit chilling...(in) his willingness to self-righteously attack his opponents for things that he would do himself" and exhibiting "excessive aggressiveness", and Michael Ignatieff as "ill-prepared" with a "confusion" stance on coalitions, Stephen Maher has this to say about Jack Layton:
Unlike any of the other leaders, Layton has had a consistent and mature line on coalitions throughout his career. He is willing to work with other parties to get things done.- And he's now able to do so in several new ways, as the NDP has release a suite of new online tools for the campaign.
Layton looks good as the campaign begins. Having rejected a Tory budget that did not go far enough to meet NDP requests, he can hold his head high in front of his supporters.
- Finally, as much as the Cons have been slammed for trying to act like a majority government even with only a minority of seats, Murray Dobbin points out that matters could indeed get worse if they actually held the majority they're shooting for:
One of the few checks on Harper's power has been the parliamentary committee structure, where the Opposition -- which controlled the committees through their numerical majority -- could do far more than they could in the House of Commons: deciding what issues would be investigated, calling witnesses (and even subpoenaing them), demanding documents and shining the public eye on otherwise secretive workings. The committees infuriated Harper the control-freak, to the point where he produced a book of dirty tricks for his MPs to use to scuttle their work.
With a majority, all of that will end. The committees will be effectively shut down. The Conservative majority will decide what's discussed, who testifies and what documents are asked for. There will be no Afghan detainee scandal, because the relevant committee (if it still exists) won't be asking for any embarrassing documents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)