Sunday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- Brian Topp rightly points out the inconsistency in how NDP poll results are reported:

(M)aybe this is a poll varying inside its margin or error, more or less. Like the other polls we've seen so far – some of which are being breathlessly analyzed despite much recent discussion about the credibility of doing so.

But you can't have it both ways, fellow poll analysts. If a two-point drop in one national poll is national news, then so is a three-point increase.

- I'm in full agreement with what Dick Gauthier thinks Canadians should be hoping for out of their election campaign. But isn't his suggested history lesson for the Cons pretty much identical to Stephen Harper's list of social policy he's worked to undermine while in office?

Stephen Harper keeps harping about the coalition boogeyman hiding in the closet just waiting to pounce on unsuspecting Canadians if his party is not given a majority in Parliament.

Any clear-thinking conservative needs only to google Canadian coalition governments to obtain a quick history lesson.
...
Although he never had a majority in the House of Commons, (Pearson) managed to bring in many of Canada's major social programs, including the much-revered universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan and Canada Student Loans, and established a new national flag. This was due in part to support for his minority government from the New Democratic Party, led by that great Canadian, Tommy Douglas.

His legislation included instituting the 40-hour work week, two weeks' vacation time and a new minimum wage.

Coalition governments work well when individuals are willing to co-operate in bringing forth good legislation that enhances the well being of all Canadians.

- It's been a huge plus to see some serious pushback against the Cons' attacks on public per-vote financing. And it isn't just the opposition parties making the case for political activity as a social good worth funding, as Fair Vote Canada has chimed in as well:

Fair Vote Canada, a national citizens’ movement for fair voting reform, has endorsed ballot-triggered public funding programs and called for the elimination of corporate and union campaign contributions in federal, provincial and municipal elections, in addition to its core demand for the use of proportional voting systems at all levels of government and civil society.

“Public financing of election campaigns creates a level playing field,” added FVC Executive Director Wayne Smith. “The per-vote subsidy introduces an element of proportionality to our winner-take-all system. Let the voters decide. Let every voice be heard.”

- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan points out that while pinching pennies when it comes to Canada's most vulnerable seniors, the Cons have already given away enough to wealthier retirees to end senior poverty in Canada:

The Alternative Federal Budget estimates that an increase of 15 per cent in the Guaranteed Income Supplement -- targeting another $100 a month to those seniors with very low incomes -- would be enough to lift most Canadians aged 65 and older above the poverty line. That would cost $1.164-billion.

Sound like a lot? Since 2007, public policy initiatives that impact seniors total considerably more than $1.2-billion a year. The government of Stephen Harper could have handily eliminated poverty among the elderly if that had been an objective. It was not.
...
In 2007, the Harper government introduced income splitting of pensions. Estimated by the Library of Parliament to cost $687-million that year, the annual tax expenditures report from the Department of Finance shows it actually cost the public treasury $920-million in 2010.

About a third (32 per cent) of that pot of money went to households with incomes over $90,000. In 2007, fewer than 10 per cent of all seniors’ households made more than $90,000. About three quarters (74 per cent) went to households making more than $60,000. In 2007, less than a quarter of all seniors’ households had incomes above $60,000.

Roughly 40 per cent of seniors live in households with incomes below $30,000. However, they only get 5.8 per cent of the benefits from the new tax treatment of pension splitting. The poorest households -- usually those who live alone, mostly elderly women -- get nothing from this $920-million initiative.

If we took that money and targeted it to Canada’s 634,000 poorest seniors, they would each get $1,450 more a year. Enough to make a huge difference in their daily lives. Enough to get rid of poverty.

Instead, the government chose to put more money into the pockets of the most well-off seniors.

It’s hard to imagine more ineffective public policy. Without doubt, we could do better. Sadly, we did even worse.
...
Fewer than five million Canadians – not quite one in five eligible Canadians – have opened a Tax Free Savings Account. By the end of 2010, these accounts held about $19 billion-in assets. Reports indicate that it primarily benefits the elderly and the affluent, with highest take-up among those over 65.

The program has reduced federal revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars each year compared to just two years ago, despite economic recovery.

In a nation as affluent as ours, seniors’ poverty doesn’t have to exist at all. Based on what seniors already get out of public policy, we can afford to help. We don’t have to spend more. We just have to spend it differently.