Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Janet Bagnall neatly dissects the Cons' plan for dismantling public services:

The Harper government is nothing if not predictable in how it goes about dismantling a program or service. It starts by denigrating the program and the program’s beneficiaries, and telling Canadians that they’ve been played for fools by the beneficiaries. Once that message has been drilled home, and the government judges that the moment is right and Canadians’ attitudes changed, it proceeds to get rid of the offending program – no matter how impractical, immoral or ultimately costly the exercise might prove to be.

- Dan Leger discusses Gwyn Morgan's efforts to poison Canada's political discourse in service to the Harper Cons.

- Heather Mallick is the latest to weigh in on the Republican-style anti-labour attitude of the Canadian right. And the Globe and Mail does its best Conservadem impression by declaring that teachers' unions should accept massive cuts from a Lib party which is at best pretending to play nice as the price of avoiding Tim Hudak's overt hatred and contempt.

- Finally, Alice takes a look at party spending in the 2011 federal election. And perhaps the most interesting note is that both the Libs (at the national level) and the Bloc (at the riding level) managed to increase their spending over 2008 in a losing battle to hold their previous ground.

Sunday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- Janet Bagnall discusses Canada's steadily-growing income inequality:

In the last 20 years, the income of 80 per cent of Americans has stagnated while that of the richest one per cent has nearly doubled. Similarly, the Conference Board of Canada reported this week that a third of the wealth created in this country in the past 22 years has gone to the top one per cent of the population. The story for most other Canadians was income stagnation or slight growth.

That top one per cent of Canadians - who number about 246,000 - made their phenomenal gains mainly in the years 1998 to 2007, years when Canada experienced its fastest economic growth since the 1950s and '60s. Fifty years ago, however, the richest one per cent of Canadians took a much smaller portion of the country's income growth: eight per cent.
...
This extreme inequality in income - a feature in many developed countries today - can have serious consequences. It can undermine the social and economic health of a country, if the skills and capabilities of all its citizens are not being used. Citizens who feel cut off unfairly from their country's wealth won't want to invest in a society that refuses to reward their efforts.

For years, Canada's progressive social programs and tax policies helped keep the income gap in check. More recently, however, a number of forces began driving the gap wider: stagnating minimum wages, decreased unionization, tighter access to unemployment benefits, lower welfare payments and the halving of the top marginal tax rate between 1948 and 2009, from 80 per cent to 42.9 per cent. Quebec, with its tradition of social solidarity backed by legislation, is the province where income inequality has grown the slowest. Market forces - especially globalization and high demand for skilled labour - also drive income inequality.

- And Rick Salution points out a substantial part of the reason why we've reached that point:

We are a society that has largely lost sight of the fact that there is anything to debate in politics except how to save money. So even when (the Rob and Doug Fords) lose, they win — by reinforcing the ground rules. Don’t credit Rob and Doug for inventing this mindset. It’s been drummed into the public ear for decades by think-tanks, pundits and politicians. But the Fords reproduce it ably.
...
We’re now mired in this profiteering, privatizing mentality. It cuts off every alternative viewpoint. Brian Topp is running for NDP leader. The worst the Harper Tories can say about him is, he has “deep union ties” and can’t “speak on behalf of all Canadians.” They don’t say why, it’s taken for granted. But tell me one thing unions have done that was even slightly as damaging as a business class that shipped out good industrial jobs (and factories) to cheap labour zones; or a financial sector that concocted useless and incomprehensible “devices” that contributed to an economic meltdown rivalling the 1930s. Yet no one challenges the ability of people with “deep business ties” to represent us.

CBC News’ nightly hour on business promotes itself with host-journalist Amanda Lang saying: “I think what is really special about the show is that it does celebrate business.” What — are they feeling needy? They don’t get enough support? They need a party every night? Is there a whole hour per year celebrating unions, librarians or teachers? And this is our public network.

- The Saskatchewan NDP's latest policy launch deals with renewable energy and recycling - with a particularly noteworthy target to achieve 50% renewable energy by 2025. And some commenters wondering whether the party would adopt a "team" approach will also have reason to like the announcement, as it rightly gives Peter Prebble prominent billing as a voice for the environment.

- Finally, pogge highlights the fact that the Cons plan to lock Canada into an information-sharing agreement with the U.S. without the slightest public input - then declare their willingness to listen only when it's too late to change anything.

Well said

Janet Bagnall challenges the patently false claim that Canada can't afford an effective public health care system:

Governments of various leanings have for years been plastering the word "unsustainable" all over our health care system. Hospital costs? Impossible to maintain. Doctors' salaries? Unaffordable. Pharmaceutical costs? Spiralling out of control. Canadians' expectations? Totally unrealistic.

Intentionally or not, it's been a masterful propaganda operation. But that doesn't make it any truer. Canadians know the health-care system they rightly view as a defining Canadian characteristic is worth saving. This week, a poll showed that 61 per cent of Canadians want the healthcare system to be improved through greater efficiencies; 28 per cent want more taxes to be spent on health care even if that means cutting other public services; and only 11 per cent think rising healthcare costs should be handled privately.

If after all these years, barely one in 10 Canadians think paying more out of their own pockets is the only way to improve the health-care system, it goes to show how ineffective the campaign undermining a publicly funded, equitable health-care system has been.
...
Medicare spending eats up roughly the same proportion of provincial revenues as it did 20 years ago, Evans told the MPs. "The problem isn't uncontrolled public healthcare spending," Evans said, according to a statement. "It's uncontrolled private health spending combined with a drop in provincial revenues created by large tax cuts over the years."

Publicly funded costs might look like they have increased, but that's because federal and provincial governments went on a massive tax-cutting mission between 1997 and 2004, resulting in the loss of $170.8 billion from public-sector revenues, according to Evans. With the public revenue pie smaller - $35 billion a year smaller at the provincial level - of course the share consumed by public health care spending looked like it was bigger.