Not Iggy!

Okay, so Dion wasn't the very best party leader. But Ignatieff? Seriously? He's the best guy they've got?

Look, I don't usually get worked up at the thought of elitist inteleckshuals sipping their lattes and scoffing at the common folk, but this guy pretty much embodies that stereotype. He's spent more of his life at Oxford and Harvard than in Canada.

More to the point, he has only three years of actual political experience. The former director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy was a prominent and early supporter of the war in Iraq (using dumbass reasoning), and equivocated on torture (using even more dumbass reasoning). This unappealing intellectual midgetry is fine for the Republican Party, but the Liberal Party of Canada? Seriously? What exactly gives this guy the credibility to become a potential Prime Minister of Canada, other than his admittedly unimpeachable Ivory Tower credentials?

Ah, whatever. For some levity, here's Jon Stewart attempting to make sense of our wacky political adventures.

I agree with the Governor General

She made the right move in proroguing Parliament. I know a lot of liberals and progressives out there will be disappointed that Harper has lived to fight another day (and really, that fight might come immediately after January 26), but in the long run, it's for the best.

Harper overreached. He knows that, and he and his party are chastened. They are still a minority government, and they need to act like one. They will now get to work on a budget that the opposition will support, meaning real concessions on the economy and no more poison pills like the removal of campaign financing dollars or crackdowns on public employees' rights to strike.

This unexpected vacation will give all the parties time to step back from the brink and think about what is best for Canada and their own political futures (there should be some overlap). We'll also have a better idea of what the US is planning to do on their end before we march ahead with a massive stimulus.

Meanwhile, despite all the fireworks, the rest of the world has barely noticed our Grave Political Crisis. How typical.

Here we go

Things are moving quite quickly. The opposition parties have come to an agreement on power-sharing, and are going ahead with plans to topple the Harper government. The NDP will have claim to 6 cabinet seats out of 25, while Dion would be PM temporarily until May, when the Liberals choose a new leader. For their part, the Bloc have pledged to support this government for 2 1/2 years (not unexpectedly, the Tories are attempting to paint the coalition as anti-Canada on account of Bloc support). Practically the only option open to Harper at this point for preserving his government is pro-roguing, which sets a dangerous precedent, and is no less drastic a move as what the opposition is currently doing.

Despite the sheer craziness of all this, the media seems to be placing the blame mostly on Mr. Harper. Here's Jeffrey Simpson, in today's Globe and Mail:

Mr. Harper, who bulldozed his way toward this cliff and who will be judged harshly and perhaps fatally by his party if the government goes over the cliff, has tried unsuccessfully to show belated flexibility by backing down (temporarily) from plans to eliminate party subsidies and ending the right to strike. But he had nothing new yesterday – not that any fresh concession would have derailed the coalition's drive for power.

His options now would seem to be a) persuade the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament only three weeks after a Speech from the Throne, hoping to gain time to manoeuvre; b) lose the confidence of the House but persuade the G-G to dissolve Parliament and call an election.
He could always offer a mea culpa and alter his economic statement. It would not likely impress the coalition partners.

Mr. Harper has either to get to another Speech from the Throne in January that might be a better platform than the rickety one of Thursday's economic statement, or get to the people and argue, as he and his MPs did yesterday, that the opposition parties are trying to take power through parliamentary intrigue, having been defeated in the election.

His fate depends, it would appear, on the Governor-General's decision to grant prorogation or an election. Otherwise, he will have done a Joe Clark, miscalculating his way out of office.

And the editorial board editor, John Geiger, is calling for Harper's resignation:

"Mr. Harper is ultimately responsible for this unhappy state of affairs. It is the byproduct of his machinations, and the product of a failure of his leadership.

"The opposition parties, especially with the Liberals busy licking their election wounds, were not out to pick a fight in the new Parliament.

"Mr. Harper gave them one anyway, turning his government's economic update into a partisan document aimed less at strengthening Canada's economic position than at undermining their ability to compete in the next election.

"In so doing, he sent the message that even if he backs down in this instance, he has no interest in making the current Parliament work.

"His conduct since then — epitomized by his blustery and provocative statement last Friday, and his party's disturbing act in eavesdropping on a private NDP conference call this past weekend — has only reinforced for the opposition the necessity of defeating him while it has the opportunity.

Regardless of where the blame lies, I have deep reservations about a coalition government.

First, it will be seen as illegitimate by many Canadians. The Conservatives may have only secured the support of 37% of Canadian voters, but they hold more seats in the House of Commons than the Liberals and NDP combined. And Liberal/NDP voters were voting for their preferred party, not a coalition. I'll be interested to see some polling, because I wonder how much support this action really has.

Second, it will grant the NDP legitimacy and a real role in government (though hopefully not any direct role in economic policy). Jack Layton will attempt to undercut Stephane Dion at every opportunity, and given their relative political talents, he'll probably succeed at promoting himself and his party at the expense of his coalition partner, causing a further deterioration of Liberal support.

Finally, this government would be coming in riding a wave of fear and uncertainty over the economy, and will be expected to take strong action to minimize the effects of a recession. Would this coalition be up to the task? Is $30 billion a realistic number for a stimulus package? One positive sign is that the NDP seem to have dropped their opposition to corporate tax cuts, showing that they will likely defer to the Liberals in most economic matters. Since I think the Liberals are generally better stewards of the economy than the Conservatives and definitely better than the NDP, that sits well with me.

To sum up, there are a lot of potential pitfalls. This could easily be a disaster for the Left that will ensure a Conservative majority in the next election. But given the way things have gone, I also don't see any other option for the opposition at this point, other than forcing some further concession out of Harper on economic stimulus. Given his current weakness, that might be possible. It would at least spare the country the trauma of leadership change so soon after an election, and it might also spare the Liberals the embarrassment of partnering with the NDP and Bloc, and governing with an unpopular leader in Stephane Dion.

(Photo: Chris Wattie, Reuters)

The need for stimulus

I may have been a bit premature in announcing the end of our political quagmire, as the Tory capitulation on public funding subsidies will not appease the opposition. Obviously, that cannot be seen as the fundamental issue here, otherwise Harper will use it as a bludgeon later on, and be the stronger for it. Instead, the Liberals and NDP will press forward with coalition talks and keep focusing on the economy, as this is probably their best chance yet to take Harper down.

And what about the economy? Is the government really guilty of negligence in the face of crisis?

Before the election, I defended Harper on the economy, pointing out that much of Canada's troubles are completely beyond our control. We cannot help but be affected by a total meltdown south of the border; Trudeau knew what he was talking about when he made his famous comment about sleeping with the elephant.

But this "economic update" from Jim Flaherty was downright bizarre.

At a time when countries around the world are working to fight a global recession by stimulating economic activity through increased government spending, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Tory government actually plans to put the squeeze on Canada's economy.

In its all-out effort to avoid running a deficit, Flaherty has promised that federal spending will be slashed by $5 billion in the fiscal year that begins next April, when economic conditions probably will be at their worst. Another $1 billion in windfall income will be banked, not recycled into economic stimulus, for a total squeeze of $6 billion.

"That's precisely the thing not to do," said Carlos Leitao, chief economist at Laurentian Bank Securities. Rather than a balanced budget, he believes, what we need right now is new spending of $15 billion or more to do things like bail out provincial budgets and boost benefits to the unemployed. This would translate into a deficit of about the same size, but it would prevent economic damage worth far more.

As a (possibly severe) recession looms, the government's focus appears to be on cutting spending and keeping the budget balanced. I'm as big a deficit hawk as anyone, but even I recognize the need for stimulus. Now is not the time to worry about balanced budgets. Now is the time to boost aggregate demand by injecting money into the economy. Canada is lucky to be in a position to do this with very little negative fallout, due to our debt reduction policies of the last decade.

I'm frankly a little puzzled by Harper's strategy here. I understand the caution on economic stimulus packages, but I don't understand why Flaherty would choose to focus on balanced budgets at a time of uncertainty and near panic over the economy.

I wish the grown-ups were in charge

The Liberals and NDP are threatening to bring down the Harper government and form a coalition, ostensibly due to inaction on an economic stimulus package, but it might also have something to do with a Tory plan to end a government subsidy paid to the parties for every vote they earn (with the Liberals with in debt, and the Conservatives possessing a formidable fundraising machine, this is a serious threat).

Link

It looks like Harper intentionally provoked the opposition just to see what they would do, and that they've fallen into the trap, so to speak (though his delaying of the confidence vote for a week may indicate some apprehension). If they backtrack now without any concessions from Harper, they'll just look ridiculous. But the way things are looking right now, it's very possible that Stephane Dion will be PM in a couple weeks time. The key question is whether the Liberals and NDP are serious about this or are just stamping their feet over losing their badly needed public funding. And also what the Bloc will do and what incentives the other parties will need to offer them for their support.

The opposition has undertaken an extremely risky strategy here. On the face of it, there is nothing inherently wrong with forming a coalition government. It is commonplace in other parliamentary democracies. Nor is it somehow "undemocratic", as that jerkoff Ezra Levant was arguing yesterday on Newsnet, as 63% of Canadians did not vote for Harper and the Tories, yet they form our government nevertheless.

But it all depends how this is framed. The Liberals and NDP desperately want this to be about the economy and inaction on the part of Harper and Flaherty towards a stimulus package. This argument is not entirely without merit, but it's more than a little suspect that this coincided with the move to remove the public funding subsidy. The Tories have a huge advantage in fundraising, while the Liberals and NDP are in debt. If the public sees this as nothing more than a naked attempt by the opposition to keep their public funding (meaning millions of taxpayer dollars), this could backfire in a big way.

On the other hand, this may be the best way to look at it:

If you're just tunning in now...

...here's what you've missed:

Tories want to destroy the opposition! Bring it on! Another election?Another election! Coalition government! Prime Minister Dion? A Liberal coup? Prime Minister Layton? Prime Minister Goodale? Harper blinks - election averted! Election on? Coalition on? Prime Minister Chretien? And Ed Broadbent? Je ne comprends pas anglais. Liberal non-confidence motion! WHAT THE @#&! IS GOING ON HERE??!!?!?!?

UPDATE: Harper delays the confidence vote until December 8th! What does it all mean? WHO THE HELL KNOWS! Let's just sit back and enjoy the ride!

Our politics are getting pretty crazy.

UPDATE: Looks like Harper wants to keep his job after all.

After 24 hours of peering into a yawning political abyss, the Harper
government stepped back from the brink Saturday, dropping a plan to kill public
subsidies for political parties.

"When it comes to the funding and subsidies that political parties get,
we just don't think it's worth getting into an election on that issue,"
Transport Minister John Baird said in an interview.

"We won't be proceeding."

I guess Italy gets to keep its dubious honour of being the most disfunctional Western democracy. For now.

Harper truly inspired

Harper says Obama election 'truly inspiring'

Well that's nice to know. Honestly, on a lot of issues, the two aren't that far apart. Obama pledges to withdraw from Iraq in two years. Harper pledges to withdraw from Afghanistan in two years. Obama supports continued private sector involvement in the health insurance industry and limited expansion of government health insurance. Harper supports more private sector involvement in our government health insurance industry. Obama supports a cap and trade system to address climate change. Harper supports cap and trade but doesn't like to talk about it much and has a much lower emissions reduction target.

I really don't forsee much friction in this relationship. Some might put forward Obama's remarks on NAFTA, but those were made during a tough primary battle in Ohio, where sentiment against NAFTA runs strong. And Obama's objections seem mainly to do with what the treaty is lacking, specifically environmental standards, and not what it includes. He is not anti-free trade. And let's not forget the battles over soft-wood lumber that occurred during Bush's presidency; a conservative in the White House is no guarantee against protectionism.

And I see that there is already some talk over a possible bilateral climate change agreement between the US and Canada. If anything, this might push Harper's position more to the Left, since Obama will certainly have much more influence in any arrangement between our two countries. Alberta is probably safe no matter what, since the US needs a secure oil supply outside of hostile OPEC states.

UPDATE: Calgary Grit makes pretty much the same point here, and also links to an interesting post comparing Harper and Hillary Clinton's positions.

T-minus 3 days...

Only three more days, kids! I'm going to take a cue from Atrios and recommend a news blackout and heavy drinking.

1. Great discussion on Real Time last night, ranging from McCain's "hero and role model", Joe the Plumber, to creepy Evangelical Jew-love, to this week's Exit Strategy, Russia:



Maher himself was on fire too, with a great election-retrospective New Rules segment:



"By the grace of Allah, Comrade Obama and his Nubian army will usher in a new era of socialism and gay marriage. So vote early and vote often, and if you're not registered, just ask one of the nice people at ACORN for a form."

Hee.

2. From Open Left:

(1) Social Security is not in crisis, and may not even ever have a shortfall. The projections used to show a shortfall are based on worst-case, GWB-style economic "growth", not on anything seen in our historical record over a similar multi-decade period. Furthermore, even with such miserable, precedented economic performance, we could fill most of the shortfall simply by raising the SS/Medicare taxes on those whose taxes are currently capped.

(2) Medicare costs are skyrocketing because our entire medical system is far more costly than that of other countries. From my diary from last April, "Medicare Myths--Don't Blame The Boomers":

Treating medicine as a commodity in our economy has caused it to become far more costly than in any other country, but with poorer overall health outcomes than all other advanced industrial nations. Thus the solution to exploding Medicare costs is not to abandon or try to replace Medicare, but to universalize it--the exact opposite direction of change from that suggested by the generational warfare meme.

Good points. Especially the latter. How many times have I said it now? The US health care system is a complete disgrace, and what is even more of a disgrace is the way that Americans cannot have an honest debate about health care reform.

3. I can't help but be entertained by Stephen Harper's revolving door of Foreign Affairs Ministers. The posting has been treated with utter unseriousness by the last few governments, and the latest selection, Lawrence Cannon, who seems not to even want the job (great start), will be the eighth in eight years.

This is part of the reason why Canada's influence in the world has diminished. Sure, we've taken on a greater military role in Afghanistan, but in many ways, Canada used to be the world's elder statesman, a grownup in a club of adolescents. That seems like a long time ago.

4. Watch as Lawrence Eagleburger falls all over himself apologizing for criticizing Sarah Palin's qualifications for office:



Wow. Josh Marshall has it about right; this is more than a little evocative of coerced public apologies in Communist countries. From the party running against "socialism".

Draft McKenna!

It looks like Stephane Dion is going to step down Monday, and I wish him all the best. He seems to be an intelligent, passionate, and charming individual who just isn't all that great a politician.

So without further ado, the Liberals must draft Frank McKenna as their parliamentary leader.

McKenna was the popular premier of my home province of New Brunswick for ten years, resigning in 1997, since he promised to only serve that long. His policies were all about jobs, and he convinced businesses to invest in NB through traditional means like tax incentives but also a more personal touch: direct phone calls to businessmen and professionals. He even had a toll-free number direct to his office, 1-800-MCKENNA that anyone could use. This was not a man afraid to face his constituents. More recently, he was the ambassador to the US, and he is currently Deputy Chairman of TD Bank (which is valuable experience given the financial turmoil afflicting the globe).

Most importantly, he's a good communicator, a credible leader, and speaks flawless English.

The only problem is that he doesn't seem to want the job! And the Liberals will probably cruise to another defeat without him. But if he runs, he can count on my vote.

UPDATE: Maybe I spoke too soon; from yesterday's paper:

Could McKenna be the Liberal leader?

Catching up

Sorry about the lack of updates, just too much real life business to take care of.

1. I missed the first 20 minutes or so of the debate, but from what I saw, it was same old, same old. Obama gave generally better answers and was calm and collected throughout the entire thing, while McCain lied and blustered his way through with ideology, not substance, all while struggling to control his temper and hide his contempt for his rival.

The talking heads on CNN seem to think McCain did very well through the first half hour or so, but started losing his way when they got into the Ayers/ACORN stuff.

Things that made me want to yell at the TV screen:

- McCain dishonestly blaming the financial crisis on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (see Matt Taibbi's epic IM takedown of Byron York).

- McCain lying about ACORN and voter fraud.

- McCain lying about Obama voting to let babies die.

- McCain repeatedly stressing how important it was to make health care more affordable, even after Obama eviscerated his sham of a plan.

2. Ah, the Canadian election. I don't have much to say about it, really. It went down about how I expected. Harper made some gains, but it's still a minority government, so either he gets the support of one or more opposition parties to pass legislation, or he just makes everything a confidence vote, daring the opposition to take him down.

Clearly Harper's attacks on the cultural industry and his support of tougher measures on youth crime hurt him badly in Quebec. If it hadn't been for those two things, he might have gotten his majority, bad economic news or no.

3. The stock market took another dive today (the Dow suffered its worst percentage loss since 1987; remember, 700 points means a lot more when your starting point is 9200).

What did I say last week? I said I'm buying this week...but I might actually have to extend that to next week.

Some economists think the bottom is around a thousand points lower than the current level (that goes for both Canada and the US). They're the pessimistic economists of course, but perhaps a little pessimism is the right attitude after the massive clusterfuck that has been perpetrated on an unsuspecting populace.

One thing is for sure, smart investors (and I humbly claim to be a reasonably smart one) will be able to get a lot of value at rock-bottom prices. Even after the Great Depression, the stock market did go back up, and money invested back then has since doubled, tripled, quadrupled, or quintupled several times over. This might not be another Great Depression, but it is, at minimum, a severe market correction. And stocks are a terrific bargain right now.....just wait a few more days and see what happens.

4. Kos has a good post up about some inexplicable McCain campaign decisions. For instance, why is he still spending millions of dollars on advertisements in Iowa and Pennsylvania? Obama is ahead by double digits in both states. If McCain wants any chance of winning at all, he needs to concentrate ALL his efforts on Florida and Ohio, and pray for some game-changer that shifts the fundamentals in his favor so that states like Virginia and Colorado stay red. Iowa and Pennsylvania are the last swing states that would shift in his favor, if they can even be considered swing states at this point.

5. And just because my day would not be complete without exposing yet another lie from Sarah Palin, this here is probably her worst yet. Steve Benen explains:

I can understand Sarah Palin feeling humiliated by her Troopergate scandal. An independent investigation concluded that she violated state ethics, abused the powers of her office, and lied about it. This isn't exactly easy to spin away this kind of violation of the public trust.

It was odd, then, to hear Palin tell reporters on Saturday that she's "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there." This was, of course, the exact opposite of reality. The Anchorage Daily News called Palin's response "an embarrassment to Alaskans and the nation." The editorial added, "Her response is either astoundingly ignorant or downright Orwellian.... Palin's response is the kind of political 'big lie' that George Orwell warned against. War is peace. Black is white. Up is down."

Naturally, then, Palin repeated the lie yesterday.

"The report that came out also was very clear in that there was no unethical or unlawful behavior on my part," Palin told a local CBS affiliate in Pittsburgh, adding, "No abuse of power there at all."

This is just madness. The report was unambiguous -- Palin "abused her power." She "violated" the "Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act." Even Sarah Palin can read this and understand the plain meaning of basic words.

This makes Palin's breathtaking lies all the more remarkable. She said the report was "very clear" that she hadn't done anything "unethical" and there was "no abuse of power" at all. I don't think I've ever seen a politician lie so brazenly.

No? Where have you been the last two months, Steve?

....oh, I kid Steve Benen. He's been invaluable in cataloging all of this crap, and yes, this lie probably takes the cake.

That's all I got.

Nearing the finish line

Canadians will go to the polls on Tuesday (if they haven't already), and most likely elect a Parliament that will probably have a few fewer Liberal seats, and a few more Conservative and NDP seats. The Greens will likely fail once again to elect a single MP. Harper tried to beat the clock on the financial crisis, and failed. But this only means a minority instead of a majority; not a Liberal government.

I'm a little depressed about this outcome, because I think the Liberals had by far the best platform of the major parties, with a bold (but not radical) attempt to address both climate change and a changing energy economy in one swift stroke, and also the promise of competent economic stewardship in a time of crisis.

On the other hand, Harper's Conservatives offered very little in the way of new ideas, preferring to run on "leadership", and present Harper as a cuddly teddy bear in blue sweaters, as opposed to the cold, emotionless robot that much of the public believes he is. The latter met with limited success, but the "leadership" thing was enough for some, including MacLeans and The Globe and Mail, both of which endorsed Harper.

I must say that I am troubled at the ease by which Harper shifts positions whenever convenient. Afghanistan is a good example; just a year ago, Harper was positively Mavericky, insisting that a timetable for withdrawal was a bad, bad idea. Now, he has announced a set date for a complete pullout, in direct opposition to NATO strategy overall. Then there was income trusts. And fixed election dates.

Harper has attempted to govern from the center, but he has one undeniable conservative accomplishment: getting money out of Ottawa. That was the rationale behind the GST cut, which was bad economics, but brilliant politics. That was the rationale behind "equalization" payments. And it has gone pretty much unnoticed.

Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your own beliefs. But there is a strong undercurrent of cynicism inherent in Harper's style of politicking.

No stranger to dirty politics, having been smeared as a crazy right wing nutjob who would put troops on our streets, Harper has turned the tables on his adversaries, and used much the same tactics in defining Dion as weak and indecisive, and convincing a sizable percentage of the Canadian population that a carbon tax is something to be feared, and a potentially disastrous blow to our stumbling economy. Harper knows this isn't true. Hell, the Conservative environmental plan (which would include indirect cap and trade markets, through carbon "credits" that can be earned by firms that beat their regulatory targets) kinda sorta puts a price on carbon too, but it's slightly more opaque. Here's Andrew Coyne:

In sum, the Conservative plan is just as costly (per tonne of emissions reduced) as the Liberals', twice as complicated (emissions trading markets are, as Europe has learned, fiendishly difficult to design: just the task of ensuring credits are based on "real, incremental, verifiable" reductions would take several pages to explain), and probably half as effective. (Not that there's anything wrong with cap-and-trade. But to get anywhere near our targets, we're probably going to need both a carbon tax and cap-and-trade, as indeed the Liberals propose.) The Tory plan has, however, proved unassailably superior in political terms. The very thing that makes the Liberal plan less risky economically — the costs are known up front — makes it more risky politically. The Conservatives have succeeded in implying, without quite saying, that the choice is between a costly scheme and no costs at all. They've hit the political sweet spot: enough of a plan to say they have a plan, but not so much as to get in anyone's face.

He goes on to note that while the Green Shift is unconvincing in its committment to revenue neutrality, and far from a perfect plan, the Conservatives take the cake in demagoguery:

But it is the Conservatives who have been the demagogues-in-chief in this affair. Among the long-term costs will be Conservative credibility. The same Conservatives who have told us for years that prices, in a market economy, are to be preferred to regulation as a means of changing economic behaviour, suddenly forget their economics when it comes to pricing carbon. The same Conservatives who have long insisted that tax rates are critical to incentives seemingly cannot comprehend the logic of shifting taxes from income to carbon. And the same Conservatives who have long lectured us that "corporations don't pay taxes, people do" — that any costs imposed on business will inevitably be passed on, usually to consumers — would rather we forgot they ever mentioned it.

Dion tried, and mostly failed, to make the argument that a Green Shift is not too expensive to risk, but too expensive to put off. We need a green economy to compete in the 21st century. No one who seriously considers the issue will deny this. And it isn't going to happen with intensity based targets and a 2006 baseline.

So yeah, I'm a little unhappy with the way things are going.

Bottoming out

I would have more to say about the plummeting stock markets, but I'm sick, tired and grumpy, and have little energy or motivation for blogging right now. So I'll just leave you with a few informative links.

Here's something positive, Canadian banks ranked soundest in the world. (the US is ranked 40)

CIBC says that the world will avoid a global recession, and Jim Flaherty says that Canada is "well-positioned" to weather this crisis, but does anyone actually believe them?

Dean Baker says that low stock prices are actually good news for us young folks who can buy them really cheap and see them grow astronomically once the markets recover. I know I'm buying. But not until next week.

My initial reaction to McCain's latest idea to save the world was fair. It's a joke.

And poor Dion, just when he was gaining in the polls, he goes and fumbles an easy question on the economy during a CTV interview. Repeatedly. (I understand that he has a slight hearing problem, but it seems like he has trouble understanding the concept of the question, which is more than a little weird)

It's the economy, stupid

It doesn't look like Harper will get his majority:



The problem the Tories face is that they didn't anticipate the breadth of this crisis when they called the election. And so they went into it without a coherent response. Big no-no. Harper's initial reaction was to say the Canadian economy was doing fine and deny that anything needed to change, which the opposition parties leapt on.

The irony here is that Harper's policies have nothing to do with the crisis, at least as it pertains to the financial sector. Our financial sector is healthy insofar as it is shielded from the US. Which may not be too reassuring, but the problems we currently face are certainly not a result of Harper favoring US style deregulation.

That is not to say that our economy hasn't been stuttering in other ways (Ontario's economy was basically already in recession before all this hit), but I sometimes think we fail to realize just how dependent we are on the US. 90% of our trade is conducted with our southern neighbor, and that's why Ontario is suffering, not because Harper cut the GST or didn't give enough subsidies to artists.

Election update

Like many Canadians, I missed the English leader's debate the other day, and I'm ashamed to say that I didn't even make much of an effort to read the news coverage the next day. Maybe I'll catch it on Youtube. But from what I'm reading now, it seems as though people were most impressed with Elizabeth May and Jack Layton. That's just wonderful; at this rate Harper will win 200 seats*, with the NDP and Greens fighting over the scraps of the Liberal party's carcass and the Bloc gaining ground in Quebec.

I did watch most of the French debate, and coming away from that, I was most impressed with Dion and his reasoned defense of the Green Shift. Harper was on the defensive most of the night, and was evasive in answering (or failing to answer) many questions. On the environment, he's at a clear disadvantage. And the worsening economic news is good for the opposition parties, as they will blame the Conservatives for it.

Honestly, that last attack is unfair. Harper has been PM for less than three years, and the deterioriating economic situation is largely out of our government's control. Our exporters depend on the US import market. Our stock market tracks with the US stock markets. Our financial sector (which, by and large, was smart enough to avoid the subprime mess) can't help but be affected by a crash south of the border.

From my perspective, the most obvious argument against Harper is not the economy but the utter cowardice of his environmental plan. Using 2006 as a CO2 baseline? "Intensity-based" targets? What this means, essentially, is at the same level of production, industries will need to reduce their emissions of CO2. It sets no hard cap on emissions. In fact, emissions could end up decreasing only slightly (or even increasing) by 2020 under this so-called plan.

You won't find an environmentalist (or economist) in the entire world who thinks this is a good policy to fight climate change. It is a farce.

Realistically, there are two options (or three, since a carbon tax can be combined with a cap and trade market), and both of them involve putting a price on carbon. It's the only thing that makes sense. The Sierra Club gives the Liberals a B+ and unsurprisingly gives the Greens (who advocate both a strict carbon tax and cap and trade market) an A- on this issue. The NDP gets a B, advocating a cap and trade policy only, since Layton can't be seen as agreeing with the Liberals. Since the Greens have no possibility of forming a government, and the NDP are a bunch of jackasses, that leaves the Liberals as the best option for those serious about changing our wrong-headed environmental policies.


*Or not, new polling suggests that the Tories actually lost ground after the debates, mostly in Quebec and Ontario. Still, I'm fearful that surging Green and NDP support will just translate into more Conservative seats.

Harper caught plagarizing

Plagarism is a pretty serious offense in academics. And we'll soon find out how serious an offense it is in politics:



Article

Harper's position on Iraq circa 2003 (supporting Bush) has clearly been something of an embarrassment for the Conservatives, and it's been quietly swept under the rug in the years since. One wonders how long the Liberals have been sitting on this, because you'd figure it could have helped them in 2006.

Of course, the question we should be asking is whether Harper has actually charted an irresponsible foreign policy course for Canada. Reading the posts headlining Progressive Bloggers, it sure seems to be the popular opinion, but I don't agree.

Sure, we're in Afghanistan, but we have the Liberals to thank for that. All our NATO allies are similarly engaged in that country. And the Harper government has pledged to withdraw within a few years.

Really, other than attempting to assert sovereignty over the Arctic (which, admittedly, will take a lot more than a few icebreakers), I'm not really sure what else the Harper government has done in terms of foreign relations. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe Canada is no longer punching above its weight, as Danielle Takacs argues here.

I'm not sure that this plagarized speech is evidence of that, only a reminder that Harper was wrong about the most bone-headed and destructive war of our generation and, for some reason, felt he needed to borrow rhetoric from other world leaders to defend it.

Sunday night wrapup

1. Looks like my post on NDP fiscal irresponsibility was timely:

NDP platform pledges billions for child care

And billions more for First Nations. Billions for affordable housing and energy retrofitting programs. Another billion in $1000 grants for all first year university students.

Look, all this is great. But how does the NDP plan to pay for it? Apparently, by reversing corporate tax cuts and pulling out of Afghanistan. Since the Conservatives have pledged to withdraw from Afghanistan within a couple years anyway, that leaves the corporate tax cuts.

The NDP loves to attack big business and side with unions and "working families", but the simple fact is that outside of Alberta, our economy is hurting. Anyone who thinks higher corporate taxes are the answer doesn't know what they're talking about. Sure, they may help pay for the billions of dollars in new government spending. This year. But what about next year, when those same corporations that the NDP loves to rail against ship jobs overseas where the corporate taxes are lower? What happens when Layton's "working families" are no longer working and tax revenues fall? How will he pay for his new social programs then?

To me, the NDP represents the unrealistic and naive Left. The Left where everything is possible, nothing is too expensive, corporations are the villains and workers are the heroes, and complete social justice is achievable. The Liberals represent a much more pragmatic Left; sympathetic to many of the same principles, but much more responsible managers of the economy. There's a reason why Canadians have never entrusted the federal government to the NDP, and it isn't because we don't like child care benefits or grants for students or affordable housing. It's because we aren't all Kool-aid drinkers.

2. Excellent editorial by Frank Rich, summing up the absurdity of the McCain campaign.

3. Looks like they've agreed to a compromise on the bailout. Still $700 billion to buy out toxic assets, but the added provisions look good:

- The $700 billion would be disbursed in stages, with $250 billion made available immediately for the Treasury's use.

- Curbs will be placed on the compensation of executives at companies that sell mortgage assets to Treasury. Among them, companies that participate will not be able to deduct the salary they pay to executives above $500,000.

- An oversight board will be created. The board will include the Federal Reserve chairman, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency director and the Housing and Urban Development secretary.

- Treasury is allowed the option to take ownership stakes in participating companies under certain circumstances.

- Treasury may establish an insurance program - with risk-based premiums paid by the industry - to guarantee companies' troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, purchased before March 14, 2008.

-One provision requires the president to propose legislation to recoup losses from the financial industry if the rescue plan results in net losses to taxpayers five years after the plan is enacted.

The incremental nature of the bailout will allow for some evaluation of how well the plan is working before flushing more taxpayer dollars down the tubes.

Curbing the compensation packages of company executives is a very populist and, dare I say, appropriate step to take, given that the irresponsibility of these same people created this mess.

I'd like to see some more info on just how the "insurance program" being spoke of here is supposed to work, but it looks like they're leaving the door open for the government (and by extension, the taxpayer) to avoid losing vast sums of money, both by taking ownership stakes under "certain circumstances" and possibly legislation to "recoup losses". Though what those "certain circumstances" are and what the legislation would amount to is not immediately clear.

And I know that it's not what this specific bill was all about, but some tightening of the regulatory framework is the obvious next step unless we want the same thing to happen 10-15 years down the road. Those who fail to learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

An NDP surge?

Just when it seemed that one left-wing party was gaining (the Greens), the other one says "hey, don't forget about us!" While the Conservatives hover somewhere between 38-40% support, it looks like the NDP is gaining at the Liberals' expense.

Only about 4 points separate the Liberals and NDP in that poll, which is unusual, to say the least. I think it really speaks to just how frustrated the Left is with Dion's leadership, or lack thereof. They'll even turn to a guy with a mustache.

Layton has a tendency to be opportunistic and promise everything under the sun if he thinks it will play with the public. Most of the NDP's stated policies are nothing but feel-good socialist bromides. They are on the wrong side of the health care debate. The wrong side of the immigration debate. Their positions on the environmental debate are self-serving and cynical. And frankly, they are on the wrong side of fiscal responsibility.

The NDP may include as part of their platform "balanced budgets", but listening to Layton over the years, he has given little indication that he sees value in budget surpluses themselves, only an opportunity for more government spending. $5 billion going to pay down the debt would be a waste in his view, when it could be spent on social programs or handed out to organized labour instead.

Canada has made great progress in cutting our national debt burden, something that we as a nation should be very proud of. We are actually the only G-7 country currently running surpluses, and our debt to GDP ratio is down somewhere in the 30% range from a high of over 60% back in the nineties:


(Source: Public Works Canada, via The Bolt)

Our friends to the south could learn a thing or two about fiscal conservatism from us pinko commie Canucks. But not from the NDP.

I don't trust Layton to keep a balanced budget any more than I trust him to keep our military healthy or our economy strong. Nor, for that matter, do I trust the federal Conservatives, who are too obsessed with gimmicky tax cuts and making sure that Alberta doesn't have to share its oil money.

Harper and the arts

I'm generally not a huge fan of exhorbitant government subsidies for the arts, especially not for chronic under-achievers like the CBC and our film industry, and I said so here.

But with that said, this kind of thing is really not helpful:

Under fire for his government's $45 million in cuts to arts and culture
funding, the Conservative leader yesterday said average Canadians have no
sympathy for "rich" artists who gather at galas to whine about their
grants.

"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see
a gala of a bunch of people at, you know, a rich gala all subsidized by
taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough, when they know those
subsidies have actually gone up – I'm not sure that's something that resonates
with ordinary people," Harper said in Saskatoon, where he was campaigning for
the Oct. 14 election.

Rather cynically, he did not repeat the statement in French, as government arts funding enjoys considerably more support in Quebec.

It's not that I fundamentally disagree with Harper on this issue (I don't). But characterizing artists in general as "rich", and trying to insert a wedge between them and "ordinary people" is nothing but demagoguery. We can certainly debate the merits of arts funding, but this should not be a class issue.

Margaret Atwood wrote a good editorial for the Globe yesterday, pointing out that the cultural sector has become a vital part of our economy, employing some 600,000 people and generating billions of dollars in revenue. Most of those 600,000 are anything but rich snobs attending taxpayer subsidized galas.

Granted, some of them are whiners, and do look quite silly whining about "censorship" simply because the government isn't giving them enough money, but it really isn't fair of Harper to say it in a way that paints all artists with the same brush.

Various Items

1. Rush Limbaugh is one ignorant motherfucker:

Rush Limbaugh baselessly asserted of Sen. Barack Obama: "Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood?" Limbaugh continued: "He's Arab. You know, he's from Africa. He's from Arab parts of Africa.... [H]e's not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American."

Millions of people actually listen to this idiot. First off, Obama isn't from any part of Africa. He was born in Hawaii, to a white Kansan mother and a Kenyan father. Second, Kenya is not an "Arab part of Africa", and Barack Obama is not an "Arab".

Here is a basic geography lesson for anyone stupid enough to listen to and believe the likes of Rush Limbaugh:

Kenya is located in Sub-Saharan Africa, just south of Ethiopia and southwest of Somalia. The people are largely descended from Bantu tribes that expanded over much of central and southern Africa during the past several thousand years, and are, in very broad terms, part of the same racial group as the descendents of West African slaves that make up much of today's African American minority. They speak Swahili, a Bantu language that is not in any way related to Arabic or any other Semitic language.

Perhaps that's too many foren' soundin' werds for Limbaugh's admirers to understand, but I did the best I could.

2. While Joe Biden is out...being Joe Biden, Obama is getting remarkably little support from the big guns of the Democratic party. Where is Hillary? Where is Al Gore? Where is Bill Clinton?

3. A pretty scary story shedding more light on the Taliban's attack on French paratroops last month implies that the guerillas are refining their tactics, and becoming more deadly. 2008 is already the deadliest year so far for coalition forces. Meanwhile, Pakistan is shooting at US unmanned aircraft. Well that's just great.

4. The numbers for our election haven't budged too much. Maybe that's because we're just not all that excited. Personally, I was pretty happy to get my voter identification card in the mail. That was exciting.

Deep thought...

...this is a good ad:


(h/t Far and Wide)

Perhaps not entirely fair. It's not like electing the Liberals will instantly turn Canada into a lush, green eco-paradise. But it definitely provides a stark contrast between the parties and speaks a language that everyone instantly understands. If only Dion was as effective a communicator...

And how 'bout them Greens? Polling 13% in the latest Ekos tracker. They're actually out-polling the NDP in Alberta. I can't understand why Harper ever wanted to exclude May from the debates; she's eating into the Left's base, not his. The more seats the Greens win (if any; let's not get too ahead of ourselves), the fewer will go to the Liberals and NDP.

A closer look at the Green Shift

Read it here.

As I keep saying, I think the carbon tax is the single best environmental policy we can undertake. By taxing polluters directly for their emissions, you provide a clear incentive for polluters to pursue more eco-friendly practices. And with the increased revenue, the government can implement tax breaks that will help to offset expected increases in consumer prices.

Will it mean higher costs for the consumer? Yes. Well, maybe. It depends what kind of consumer you're talking about. For example, the consumer who leaves their television on all day and sticks with incadescent light bulbs will obviously pay more for electricity. But the consumer that is conscious of their power consumption, turns their television off when it isn't being used, and switches to compact flurorescent light bulbs will likely save a lot of money.

Gasoline is not set to be taxed, nor is diesel (at least not for the first year), and the reasoning behind that is that there are already taxes on motor fuel. Take that at face value if you want. Or not; personally, I think gas and diesel should be taxed much more heavily.

Look, I'll be honest, I'm a bit of an environmental extremist. Few things make my blood boil like reading about unsustainable farming/fishing practices or energy policies that literally consist of "more drilling". And I think anyone who poaches endangered animals for profit should be doused in barbecue sauce and thrown into a cage full of rabid hyenas.

So yeah, I'm biased. But the truth is that we'll need to start sacrificing if we want to continue to live unsustainable lifestyles. We may think it's cheaper to not have a carbon tax, but in the long run, it isn't. The costs associated with climate change and other environmental destruction are simply enormous, and they are not reflected in today's consumer prices. The market just isn't that effective in conveying the real costs of finite resources and unsustainable business practices.

The point of this isn't to take more of your money and give it to the government to waste, but to encourage a greener lifestyle. To make people think before they choose a hamburger instead of a salad, before they take the car out for a 1 km trip, before they buy the McMansion 50 miles outside of the city instead of a condo closer to their place of work, before they buy the SUV instead of the compact.

A significant Green Shift needs to happen at some point if we are to remain a viable civilization. Whether Stephane Dion is the guy with the right plan is up for debate, but at least his heart is in the right place.