Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns. I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015). I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!" You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).

 
Not a parody site

Salon: "Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy."

posted by Paul Tuns at 7:11 PM

 
Randall Denley shovels CW on Ontario PC leadership race

The Ottawa Citizen's Randall Denley is usually worth a read, but he misses the mark with his take on the Ontario PC leadership race which repeats the conventional wisdom. Just two points about his column.

Denley says Patrick Brown is a lot like Tim Hudak and that "PCs who want a new approach for their party should also ask themselves just how different Patrick Brown really is." There are superficial similarities about age, political experience, and broad political philosophy. The fact is we don't know if Brown would run on the same broadly conservative ideas as Hudak or not, but the platform going into the 2018 election might not be the most important measure here. There are, however, major differences between Brown and Hudak, and it is precisely about approach. Brown wants to shake up the party by infusing it with new members that typically are not PC voters although they might hold some conservative views. Welcoming ethnics and some unionized workers will challenge the Party Establishment and remove the power that the current consultants and advisers have. These people will be replaced by different consultants and advisers, and that's not a bad thing. The Tories have lost four consecutive elections. If you take the substantially decreased majority in 1999, the brain trust running the party hasn't had a great 16 years. They deserve, at the very least, to be challenged for control. Brown will do that. If Elliott wins, the same old Albany Club stalwarts will be running the Tories. They believe in top-down management of the party. Make no mistake that Brown is on the periphery of that Establishment -- he's an MP and he rose up through the ranks of campus partisans -- but he seems willing to open up the Establishment to new blood. On this alone he deserves a chance.

Denley also says:

The PC party does need change, but in my opinion, that means moving closer to the middle and presenting a plan for sustainable health care. Christine Elliott has a fair chance of accomplishing that. If PCs want to form the next government, they will choose her. If they choose Brown, they risk becoming an unelectable NDP of the right.

The fact is we don't know who is electable and not electable until an election. The NDP in Alberta and Wildrose were unelectable, but it looks like they might displace the ruling Tories in that province. The line against Jim Flaherty was he was unelectable so the Ontario PCs had to select Ernie Eves and later John Tory leader. The Ontario PCs picked from the center and did horribly. Stephen Harper, even many of his supporters admitted, was never going to defeat Paul Martin; Harper has been prime minister for nine years. Rob Ford had no chance of being elected mayor of Toronto in 2010; we all know what happened there. Generally the right-wing is not considered electable and the moderates electable but often the right-winger can take advantage of circumstances to win power and many moderates suffer disappointing results. Not every time, mind you, but enough that the advice of select-the-electable-moderate should be ignored.

posted by Paul Tuns at 11:47 AM

 
Does Baltimore punch above its weight?

Tyler Cowen lists his favourite things Baltimore. Strong list of authors and other culturally and politically important figures. I'd pick H.L. Mencken over Edgar Allen Poe for favourite/best author.

posted by Paul Tuns at 11:18 AM

 
Do cars and cities go together?

The Guardian has an interesting article, "End of the car age: how cities are outgrowing the automobile." As a suburbanite who works downtown I have been thinking about this for some time but from a slightly different angle. Parking.* Parking is an inefficient use of land, that according to one Simon Fraser University econ student is the equivalent to a 1% sales tax on good sold in stores that have free outdoor parking. Alex Tabarrok recently pointed to the excellent work of economist Donald Shoup and his important 1992 paper, "Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking." Land is too valuable in cities to merely park cars on it, and some cities have lifted or relaxed requirements for developers to provide parking. So whether cars will become less common sights in cities might end up being a market decision rather than one made by central planners concerned about the environment or livability (which is the focus of The Guardian story). I remain agnostic on whether walking neighbourhoods are "better," whatever that means. To each his own and all that jazz. I get the appeal but it's not for me.

Another interesting component to this discussion is the impact of autonomous vehicles which are predicted to reduce congestion and the need for parking. The International Transport Forum released a study last week on "Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How shared self-driving cars could change city tra ffic." The study's implications are limited because it examines the impact of self-driving cars in mid-sized European cities, where car culture is obviously different than in larger cities or North America, and where public transit is either already in place or theoretically cheaper to build. It seems to over-estimate benefits, and suggests severely limiting private car ownership/usage in favour of taxibots. The point may well be not that cities are carless, but what kind of cars do cities have.

* I think a lot about parking even though I use -- and prefer -- public transit.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:34 AM

 
Conservatives trusted on economics

Abacus Data poll finds that the budget is a political success for the Conservatives. But for those whom economic issues are a priority, there is a clear preference for the Tories over Liberals. On jobs Conservatives are favoured 38% to 29%, taxes 48% to 24%, middle class incomes 32%-30%, and debt/deficit 48%-24%. Post-budget there was a gain of between 3% and 8% on each measure for the Conservatives and decline of 6%-9% for Liberals. The Liberal (and NDP) narrative that the budget is reckless and/or helps the wealthy is not resonating.

My favourite data point from the poll: 8% of Canadians did not know there was a federal budget, while 31% know there was a budget but not any details of it. They are probably disengaged enough to note vote.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:08 AM

 
11 NFL draft predictions (actually 11+)

1. Adrian Peterson is not going to be a Dallas Cowboy after the weekend. Unless he's an Arizona Cardinal, he'll still be with the Minnesota Vikings who are over-valuing him. The Vikes may have to cut him before the Summer. The Dallas Cowboys will use a first or second round pick on a running back and avoid Peterson's $12 million-plus price tag, not to mention the negative publicity. Jerry Jones has a monopoly on Dallas' negative publicity. And the 'Boys already signed defensive end Greg Hardy who has served one suspension and will serve another suspension for (the same) alleged domestic abuse.

1b) The Bleacher Report's Mike Tanier seems to disagree, noting that the Vikings are both deft drafters and creative dealers and could find a way to move Peterson in a non-blockbuster deal. It is possible the Vikes pick a running back in the first round thereby forcing another team to make a trade because one of the three top RBs are gone. If that happens, it is possible Peterson will be used to swap Minnesota's third round pick for Dallas or Arizona's second or fourth for third. I'm dubious because of the Peterson price tag.

2. There is about a 50% chance that a team jumps ahead of the New York Jets to grab QB Jameis Winston or Marcus Mariota (whoever the Tampa Bay Buccaneers don't pick). The only two interested teams that could pull it off are the San Diego Chargers and Philadelphia Eagles, both of whom have a quarterback to send along with their own first round pick (and whatever else the deal needs to be consummated). The Cleveland Browns have the trade chits but probably not the will to move on from the one-year mistake of Johnny Manziel; hard to admit failure and pick a quarterback in the first round two years in a row (and three times in four years after taking Brandon Weeden in 2012). If for some reason the Buccaneers keep their first-overall pick and don't draft Marcus Mariota, the chance that Philly or San Diego moves up increases to 66% and the Browns might become a little more interested.

3. Both the Indianapolis Colts and Seattle Seahawks are in win-now mode and should trade up to get better talent for their needs rather than settling for less. The Colts are more likely to do that considering their recent history of aggressive dealing. The 'Hawks don't have a first round pick because they sent it to New Orleans in exchange for TE Jimmy Graham so moving up in the second round should be a priority.

4. You can make a strong case for Tennessee (#2), Jacksonville (#3), Oakland (#4), Washington (#5), Atlanta (#8), New York Giants (#9), St. Louis (#10), New Orleans (#13), and San Francisco (#15) all trading down to gain extra picks. The Giants won't because they make few draft day deals. New Orleans won't because they aggressively trade up. Oakland might have too much of a premium player at a need position (defensive tackle Leonard Williams or one of the highly coveted wide receivers) available at the fourth spot to move down the draft board. It would be shocking, however, if at least two of Tennessee, Jacksonville, Washington, Atlanta, St. Louis, or San Fran did not trade down. The Rams are also a candidate to move up, particularly if either elite wide receiver Amari Cooper or Kevin White are available in the fifth or eighth spot.

5. Excluding unforeseeable trades to grab West Virginia WR Kevin White in the top five (highly unlikely), the wide receiver-desperate Chicago Bears will pick White here. If he's not available, they join the teams that could trade down to add picks. If they trade down, it is to grab another receiver from the deep talent pool at that position this draft although grabbing anyone but Cooper or Smith at #7 is a stretch. Better to add mid-round picks to go with a mid-first round receiver than reach at their coveted draft position.

6. The Philadelphia Eagles, Cincinnati Bengals, Pittsburgh Steelers and Detroit Lions pick 20-24. All desperately need help in the secondary. The Bengals only priority in the 1st round will be safety/cornerback help. Ditto for the Steelers but make that the first, second, and third rounds ... if they are smart. The Eagles could trade up to get any number of other players including a quarterback (by moving into the top four) or wide receiver (moving into the top eight). Assuming Philly doesn't trade, I expect four safeties/cornerbacks taken here (although the Eagles could more than justifiably pick up left-side offensive line help considering the age of the veterans at LT and LG). If the Lions don't like what is available to them at this point, they could trade back a few spots and pick up extra late picks to make up for the draft picks they shipped to the Baltimore Ravens for defensive tackle Haloti Ngata. Or they could improve an O-line that needs more work, although they need the extra picks more.

7. Michigan State cornerback Trae Waynes will almost certainly be available when the Washington Redskins pick at #5 and possibly when the Chicago Bears pick at #7. It is possible that a team (although not the Steelers) trade up for Washington's pick and probable that a team will try to trade up for Chicago's pick. Waynes is not a game-changing back like Richard Sherman but even a reliably good Asante Samuel-type is important to a secondary-needy team.

8. The New England Patriots typically trade down to gain additional picks, but they desperately need a nose tackle after letting Vince Wilfork go. Washington's Danny Shelton is unlikely to be available at 32, so the Pats could trade up, although they also need help in the secondary after Darrelle Revis left for the New York Jets, so they might make a move into the top of the 20s. If the player Bill Belichick wants is not available at #32 or is likely to be available five picks later, expect the Pats to trade down. So I guess my prediction is that New England trades up, trades down, or (no pun intended) stands pat.

9. A lot of mock drafts have the Houston Texans taking Missouri defensive end Shane Ray at #16. The Texans have J.J. Watt and 2014 first overall pick Jadeveon Clowney, also a defensive end. Clowney has been injured, but I still don't see. Houston needs a WR replacement for the departed Andre Johnson. There should be a few to choose from at this point and they'll pick the one the were most comfortable with in their preparations not who the mock drafters think is the "best" WR on the board. Arizona State's Jaelan Strong is not as high on a lot of pundits' lists but could be a surprise pick at WR by the Miami Dolphins or Houston Texans over DeVante Parker (Louisville) or Breshad Perriman (University of Central Florida).

9b) The Carolina Panthers will draft a wide receiver in the first round. It would be a mistake for them to move up to get one. There is a 20% chance they make that mistake.

10. There is lots of talk of the Denver Broncos picking Peyton Manning's replacement in the first round. Unless they really love someone who is still available at #28, they will probably pick a WR replacement in the first round for Demaryius Thomas who will probably exit Denver after the 2015 season and QB in the second or third. The Denver is not desperate but could use offensive line reinforcements. But there could also be a run of QBs in the early second round (Tennessee, Chicago) so Denver will have a difficult decision. Ultimately, they will decide against a quarterback in the first round.

10b) Teams in the final four or five spots generally don't have glaring needs (the Indianapolis Colts excepted). They are really good teams that generally draft near the end of the first long draft day because they have deep, talented teams. Like the Denver Broncos, the Green Bay Packers are one of those teams and they don't have a lot of needs, but they probably should find a quality replacement for departed linebacker A.J. Hawk. TCU's Paul Dawson got into some trouble (failed drug test, missed team meetings) that typically costs a player 10-20 spots in the draft. The Packers have a great organization and strong locker room, so they are equipped to handle a young player with potential character issues.

11) The endless array of pundits who did a half dozen or more mock drafts will all claim they were correct because they had a pick here and pick there right which is inevitable considering the various permutations multiple mocks. The only mocks they should be able to claim are "right" are their first or last -- and not both. But they will. Instead, football pundits should cast aside professional courtesy and mock each other over how wrong they generally were. Mock drafts are bullshit but sports shows and websites will use them to claim their experts are brilliant soothsayers. And the idea of a seven-round mock is ridiculous.

posted by Paul Tuns at 5:51 PM

 
The disproportionate income tax paid by the top 20%

McGill economist William Watson has a column in today's Financial Post noting that the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of total income tax. The lowest quintile pays almost none (1.2% among families, 0.9% among unattached individuals) while the highest quintile pays between 57% ad 68%. Watson says that these figures -- and he has many more -- are simply facts that tell us nothing about whether it is a "morally satisfactory state of affairs." It could be that these are the right amounts, considering the poor have less money and the rich, by definition, have more. But those are value judgements. (Yesterday Watson had a piece in the Ottawa Citizen arguing in favour of values-based policy alongside evidence-based policy.) Here is a value-based judgement that along with evidence such as that presented by Watson: some people argue that citizens aren't really invested in society if they aren't paying taxes so perhaps the poor should pay more. The commonly held position is that the wealthy should be their brother's keeper and contribute to the smooth functioning of society. (Another view is Barack Obama's which poo-poos individual achievement as "you didn't build that" so the state can come and take whatever it wants because you didn't really earn it.)

There is an argument to be made that the wealthy, by being more productive and creating things and services others want, should actually pay less. The social benefits of Walmart or Windows are so great that the Walton family or Bill Gates have given back enough to society through their entrepreneurship that they should pay less taxes, perhaps even a lower rate of tax than the unproductive poor. I am deeply sympathetic to this argument, although it is a political non-starter.

As Watson points out, many people in the top 20% or the second highest quintile (which contributes about 22-23%) are not billionaires or even millionaires, but fortunate people who don't feel particularly wealthy, they just earn a comfortable living. We probably should stop taxing them at rates that make it difficult for them to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:52 PM

 
University = signalling

Bloomberg View's Noah Smith has a column on education as signalling and Bryan Caplan has a lengthy reply to it. Caplan concludes his post:

I'm glad to hear this. Noah inadvertently grants one of my key points: Most of education's labor market payoff is unrelated to the material your professors explicitly teach you. Once you accept this heresy, you're stuck with some combination of my multidimensional signaling story, and Noah's amorphous, evasive "large number of benefits that are very hard to measure" story. If that's the choice, my story will end up with the lions' share of the mix. Noah is welcome to the leftovers.

Final challenge for Noah: If education's rewards stem from this "large number of benefits that are very hard to measure," why on earth would the payoff for graduation vastly exceed the payoff for a typical year of education? My explanation, of course, is that given the vast social pressure to cross educational milestones, failure to graduate sends a very negative signal to the labor market, leading to discontinuous rewards. What's Noah's alternative? Do schools really delay "building social networks, broadening people's perspective, giving young people practice learning difficult new mental tasks and so forth" to senior year?

posted by Paul Tuns at 8:37 AM

 
The riot community has 'Battered Community Syndrome'

Twitchy reports that a psychologist diagnosed the Baltimore rioters -- from a distance and over Twitter -- with "Battered Community Syndrome." How can she know? "From the purposeful ploy of the crack epidemic to tactfully placed subpar schools."

posted by Paul Tuns at 6:49 AM

 
Justin Trudeau's speech on liberty was bullshit

Noted right-wing columnist Adam Radwanski, whose family has no connection whatsoever to the Liberal Party, writes in the Globe and Mail that Junior's views on liberty and civil rights as expressed in his famous speech in Toronto last month have been betrayed a little bit by his embrace of former Toronto police chief Bill Blair, whose police force acted like third world thugs during the 2010 G20 meetings, to say nothing of the force's practice of carding. Radwanski reminds readers of Trudeau's own words: "efforts of one group to restrict the liberty of another are so very dangerous to this country, especially when agencies of the state are used to do it." Radwanski writes:

The words of both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Blair, though, are difficult to square with two sets of actions under the former chief’s watch.

The first was the handling of the G20 summit in 2010, when a wave of vandalism prompted police to arbitrarily suspend normal rights. More than 1,100 people were arrested (most of them never charged), random passersby were “kettled” for hours on end and there were widespread allegations of excessive force. While Mr. Blair later took responsibility for mistakes, he was strongly defensive of his force’s actions at the time.

The second, probably more germane to issues Mr. Trudeau flagged, was “carding.” Stopping and questioning people not suspected of a crime, pervasive under his watch, has been sharply criticized as a form of racial profiling that targets and alienates young black men in particular. Mr. Blair suspended and then modified the practice in his final months on the job, but only after pushing back hard against police-board attempts to rein it in.

For anyone inclined to cast a ballot on the basis of which party best defends civil liberties, either of those issues could be deal breakers – if not because they’re on Mr. Blair’s record, then because Mr. Trudeau has expressed little concern about them.

The full column is highly recommended.

posted by Paul Tuns at 6:30 AM

 
2016 watch (Waka Flocka edition)

Foreign Policy reports:

Atlanta rapper Juaquin James Malphurs, best known as Waka Flocka Flame, has announced that he’s running for president. At 28, he’s seven years short of the minimum age requirement, but that hasn’t stopped him from releasing two campaign videos in collaboration with Rolling Stone, the first set to “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

Like other candidates who have almost no hope of winning, Flocka is running to publicize himself and his platform. “Waka Flocka is a product, a franchise, a brand, a label…. And a good guy!” he told Interview magazine.

He’s an independent, but he sees the Democrats as his rivals. “Hillary is my only competition right now,” he said. “It’s a tough one. I hope I make it.” (New Yorker writer George Packer, who has declared himself already bored stiff with the 2016 election, should get to know Flocka.)

The campaign may be a joke, but it’s no fleeting whim: Flocka has been tweeting about this since 2012. Other than his goes-without-saying plan to legalize marijuana on day one in the White House, he’s already proposed a slew of policy initiatives, including a federal ban on dogs in restaurants. Flocka wants extreme power for the executive branch. “I am Congress; I’m president,” he said in the first campaign video. On intervention abroad: “I don’t give a damn if we’re going to war.” Flocka wants to #FreePalestine, #FreeKurdistan, and thinks Canada is mad real.

It's not a coincidence that he launched his campaign on 4/20. He also says "Fuck the Congress. I am Congress" and that a minimum wage of $15 for fast food restaurants is a "great fucking idea."

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:26 AM

 
2016 watch (Hillary Clinton's appearance edition)

Hillary Clinton's appearance has been the topic of discussion lately by critics, Saturday Night Live's Cecily Strong (who complains that noticing Hillary's looks is sexist), and the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza who says that sometimes appearances matter. Then there's Monica Showalter in Investor's Business Daily:

Hillary looks noticeably disheveled while on official business, and during her tenure as secretary of state looked downright dirty and unkempt.

If that's her situation, it's a tangible sign she's unable to manage the job as well as present herself as the face of America to foreign nations. Combine it with the fact that she's made significant gaffes while abroad, as well as been seen apparently drunk in public and it's an external reflection of her incompetence.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:17 AM

 
Elliott could lead the Tories and win an Ontario election. If it were 1975.

Martin Regg Cohn in the Toronto Star on erstwhile Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership front-runner Christine Elliott: "Elliott is personable and progressive, but not always passionate or persuasive — just like Bill Davis in his day. Not that it ever hurt him on election day." In the age before the 24/7 news cycle. Before social media. When the Ontario Tories were the Government Party.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:08 AM

 
Is the Toronto Star trolling Canadians?

The Toronto Star's Rick Salutin in a video: "Should Omar Khadr get the Order of Canada?"

(HT: Daniel Dickin on Twitter)

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:03 AM

 
Hazel McCallion endorses Kathleen Wynne Christine Elliott

Christine Elliott released a statement: "Today, Christine Elliott continued her campaign’s momentum by welcoming an enthusiastic endorsement from Hazel McCallion, Former Mayor of Mississauga." That would be the same McCallion who endorsed Kathleen Wynne's Liberals in last year's provincial election.

posted by Paul Tuns at 9:50 PM

 
2016 watch (Bernie Sanders edition)

There are reports that Vermont's "independent" Senator Bernie Sanders, a card-carrying socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, will enter the Democratic presidential nomination contest on Thursday. He is seen as to the left of Hillary Clinton and as Reason's Ed Krayewski says, "Sanders will give voice to the faction of the Democratic Party that's all about naked class envy."

posted by Paul Tuns at 6:30 PM

 
The corporate case for do-gooding is usually oversold

Alex Tabarrok: "One of the least-convincing tropes of financial journalism is the article explaining how business firms can increase profits and at the same time engage in some conventional, culturally-approved, do-good activity such as improving the environment, saving energy, or helping the poor." He examines the issue of raising wages as a good-for-society/good-for-the-bottom-line reform, and debunks the idea as "false prophets peddling false profits."

posted by Paul Tuns at 3:05 PM

 
Occupational licensing nonsense

The Daily Signal reports that Texas stylists are required by law to have 2000 hours of training to braid hair, but fortunately a lawmaker is trying to get rid of the onerous licensing requirements.

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:54 PM

 
Shut bad schools and move students to new ones

Michael Petrilli and Aaron Churchill of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute write in the Wall Street Journal of the benefits of closing bad schools (although their research included schools closed due to declining enrollment, too). They found that displaced students in nearly 200 closed schools in Ohio, most of whom were black and/or poor and who averaged scoring at about the 20th percentile in math and reading, "typically receive a better education in their new school, relative to what they would have received in their closed school." Using a metric called additional days of learning -- which "captures the incremental benefit of an intervention — in this case, school closure — on test scores" -- they found that three years after being displaced public school students gained on average 49 extra days of learning reading and 34 extra days of learning in math. And "when students landed in higher-quality schools than the ones they left behind, the gains were even larger — 60 days in both math and reading for public-school students." The difference moved displaced students from 20th to 23rd percentile. The research, say the authors, suggest politicians need not be afraid of school closures, especially underperforming scools, because they can produce positive educational outcomes.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:18 AM

 
Steyn on 'Everything Happens to Me'

Mark Steyn's latest Sinatra Song of the Century is "Everything Happens to Me." A snippet:

But "Everything Happens To Me" was especially special to Sinatra. He recorded it on four separate occasions, in four different decades, giving darker and darker readings every time. And then, as Kristi says, a couple of years before he died and over half-a-century since he had first sung her grandpa's song, Frank put together his own compilation album of his personal favorite recordings - and chose as the title track "Everything Happens To Me". By then, everything had happened to him, yet he was still singing a rueful ballad he'd first recorded back in February 1941, before anything very much at all had happened to him.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:03 AM

 
Gerald Butts goes after Bruce Anderson for not being a doctrinaire Liberal

Gerald Butts is Justin Trudeau's principal secretary. He attacked Bruce Anderson over the latter's vanilla column last week in which Anderson said that the Tories had a politically effective budget that makes it more difficult for the Liberals come October. Anderson was providing not so much insight than regurgitating the conventional wisdom. Still, Butts' attack in noteworthy because as Ezra Levant points out, he says Anderson shouldn't criticize other Liberals. But Anderson claims not to be an "official Liberal," although his daughter is the official mouthpiece for Trudeau. Levant raises some good questions about the whole sordid affair but more importantly he says it indicates the type of dictatorship style of governing we might expect from a Trudeau regime. Just imagine if someone from the Prime Minister's Office posted something similar to Butts' Facebook criticism of a right-leaning pundit. Butts would be leading the charge against the heavy-handedness and dictatorship of the Harper PMO, and rightly so. But it goes both ways.

posted by Paul Tuns at 6:48 PM

 
2016 watch (Martin O'Malley edition)

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute lists the taxes that former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, who might run against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, raised while in office:

Raised the top personal income tax rate from 4.75 to 5.75 percent. With local taxes on top, Maryland’s top rate is 8.95 percent.

Raised the corporate tax rate from 7.0 to 8.25 percent.

Raised the sales tax rate from 5 to 6 percent and expanded the sales tax base.

Raised the sales tax rate on beer, wine, and spirits by 50 percent.

Raised the gas tax by 20 cents over four years, almost doubling the rate from 23.5 cents.

Doubled the cigarette tax from $1 to $2 per pack.

Imposed higher taxes on vehicle registration.

Imposed a stormwater mitigation fee on property owners, or a “rain tax.”

In other news, a star of Veep has endorsed O'Malley.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:49 PM

 
The limits of comedy in our censorious age

Richard Klagsbrun at The Rebel's Megaphone on "Should comedy have boundaries?":

[P]eople can't take a fucking joke anymore.

We live in times where it seems that every moron with Internet access spends all their waking hours scouring electronic media for something at which they can find an excuse to take offense. Then, they'll try to shut it down, by either a petition or some other form of social media campaign. If successful at censorship, they get to shout about their "victory" and feel a sense of power they could never otherwise achieve from, oh, say, creating something or doing something productive.

However, the biggest culprits in this trend aren't the insufferable Internet shitheads who get pleasure from shutting down free speech. It's the media companies, the academic departments, the politicians, and the rest who surrender like an Italian infantry unit at the first sign of trouble.

The boundaries, Klagsbrun says, is "applying common sense and picking an appropriate setting," without stating what those might be. There was a time when he wouldn't need to, but when we seem to have collectively replaced our sense of humour with a sense of aggrievement, the appropriate setting is getting smaller and smaller.

I generally consider Mary and the Holy Spirit off limits, figuring Jesus can take a joke but it's not okay to insult his mother and Catholics consider it a sin to mock the Holy Spirit. Everything else from abortion to zoophilia is on the table. Whether or not it's funny is another matter, but the right response to unfunny comedians is not to censor them but ignore them.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:40 PM

 
Occam's Nail File

Ferox Ludum at Samizdata:

We have discarded Occam’s Razor (the explanation which uses the fewest assumptions is best) for Occam’s Nail File (if there is a gender difference that reflects unfavourably upon women, discrimination is the only allowable explanation).

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:09 PM

 
Two-and-a-half cheers for TPP

Tyler Cowen notes the Trans-Pacific Partnership will provide enormous benefits to Vietnam, for example, says, "Do you get that, progressives? Poorest country = biggest gainer. Isn’t that what we are looking for?" If you take the Left's words at face value that they care about "the poor" then opposition to TPP is baffling, but most people on the Left no more care about the poor in the developing world than most on the Right; the poor in the developing world are talking points and photo-ops, not real people for whom small improvements in affordability are life-changing.

Cowen also says, "Yes, I am familiar with the IP and tech criticisms of TPP, and I agree with many of them. But if you add those costs up, in utilitarian terms I doubt if they amount to more than a fraction of the potential benefit for the ninety million people of Vietnam. TPP is more of a 'no brainer' than a close call." In other words, no agreement is going to be perfect so consider the net benefits and net costs and determine whether the TPP or any other trade agreement is worth it. Usually they are. Ditto for free market libertarians and conservatives skeptical of free trade agreements (as opposed to free trade): most trade agreements add layers of regulations, but on the whole they make moving goods and services between or among countries easier. As Martha Stewart used to say, "it's a good thing."

Steve Sailer offers objections to these agreements in the comments section that are also worth considering, namely that increased immigration leads to higher land prices which disproportionately hurt the poor.

posted by Paul Tuns at 11:27 AM

 
Payroll tax reform now!

A Wall Street Journal editorial reports that according to an OECD report, most people in western democracies are paying higher taxes. Of special note:

The average total “tax wedge” is the difference between the gross cost to a company of employing one person and what that worker takes home after income tax and employee and employer social insurance taxes. The OECD finds that this wedge stood at 36% in 2014, up 0.1 percentage points from 2013 for its 32 member countries. The average tax burden was 35% in 2010. The burden increased in 23 OECD member countries in 2014, though no country increased marginal tax rates ...

The OECD provides a useful public service by including social-insurance taxes on workers and employers in these rankings. These contributed significantly to the bigger tax wedges in countries such as Canada, where social charges amounted to nearly half of the 0.52 percentage point increase to 31.5%, tying America at 22nd. Politicians like to present these levies as “contributions,” but the sooner voters recognize them for the income taxes they are, the better.

For many people, the tax rates that affect them most are not income tax rates but the various payroll deductions (unemployment insurance and pension schemes).

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:13 AM

 
Never let a good lie go to waste

Daily Caller: "Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said Friday she hopes recent rape hoaxes will put 'more of a spotlight on the problem [of rape]'." That's a U.S. senator, folks.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:03 AM

 
Talking head on CNN: want real news follow Twitter

CNN guy justifies decision with to stick with coverage of President Barack Obama telling lame jokes rather than report breaking news in Baltimore.

posted by Paul Tuns at 9:45 PM

 
Finance Minister admits the truth, spurring headlines

CTV thinks it made news by getting Finance Minister Joe Oliver to admit he doesn't know how many jobs his budget will create. That's because no one does. Budgets don't create jobs. They can, however, contribute to the environment in which jobs are more easily created, or lost. But we don't know that yet, either.

posted by Paul Tuns at 5:07 PM

 
Should the rich be able to speed?

Noting a story about progressive traffic fines in Finland, Tyler Cowen concludes, "Wealthier people have a higher value of time, and it is probably efficient to allow them to speed more."

posted by Paul Tuns at 5:04 PM

 
Conservatives, liberals and borders

Todd Zywicki of the George Mason University Law School on Facebook via Cafe Hayek:

So just to make sure I’m up to speed: being a “conservative” means you are for allowing goods to cross borders but not people and being a “liberal” means you are for allowing people to cross borders but not goods?

This sounds about right, but it is too cute by half and incorrect.

The conservative movement is divided on immigration, but there does seem to be agreement, at least outside Republican establishment circles, on opposition to invasive immigration. Most political debates about immigration in the United States are about mass immigration and large-scale amnesty. That is an extreme position on the welcoming side and opposition to those positions that shouldn't be used to paint all conservatives as anti-immigration. That said, there are conservatives who are opposed to immigration. They are, in fact, a marginalized voice within official conservative circles.

Likewise, few liberals oppose trade. The ease of trade is the issue.

What is correct is this: conservatives generally don't want to make it easier for more people to get into the United States and liberals generally don't want to make it easier for for foreign companies to sell their goods to Americans.

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:16 PM

 
2016 watch (Kasich edition)

John Kasich is the governor of Ohio and former Congressmen who is an interesting candidate. He comes from a swing state and is just fiscally and socially conservative enough to be on everyone's shortlist for vice president, but has one or two strikes against him (looking old, open to parts of Obamacare that upset Republicans) that probably makes him a non-starter for a presidential run. He seems the perfect running mate for someone like Marco Rubio (experience to go with youth) or Ted Cruz (moderation, non-southerner to go with passionate Texan), but he may be eyeing the top of the ticket for himself. The Washington Post reports:

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) said in an interview broadcast Sunday that he plans to decide whether to run for president based heavily on whether he thinks he can raise enough money to compete for the GOP nomination.

The fact that he is admitting fundraising might be an issue almost certainly means it is an issue.

A better question for Kasich is not his fundraising prowess but why enter at all? What does Kasich bring to the GOP primary debate that no other candidate brings? There will be no dearth of socially conservative, fiscally conservative governors and former governors.

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:02 PM

 
WHO and the ebola crisis

The Guardian reports that the World Health Organization released a statement on what it did wrong or could have done better in the Africa ebola crisis last year. Within an hour, WHO took that one down and replaced it with a heavily edited statement with much less self-criticism. Hard to get away with that in the age of the internet.

And in news that is a few weeks old, the U.S. will help establish an African Centers for Disease Control based in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) that will work closely with the CDC to monitor the spread of disease on that continent. This will be, no doubt, more effective preventing the spread of deadly diseases that the UN's World Health Organization.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:36 PM

 
End of an era

This story is about a month old but Marginal Revolution has the link today: the third last Howard Johnson restaurant closed recently in Lake Placid, N.Y., leaving just two HoJos: Lake George, N.Y., and Bangor, Maine. There was once more than 1000 locations. It is strange that the story doesn't mention Howard Johnson's was also a major hotel/motel chain, and there are still HoJo hotels (which have been operated by various hotel companies over the years). Wikipedia has an excellent entry on HoJos. I have memories of passing both the hotels and restaurants in our family travels in the late 1970s and early 1980s -- as a preteen we took family trips to both coasts -- but no recollection of eating or staying at them. The NPR author has the first comment on his own story and adds that taking his own family and friends to the Lake Placid restaurant provided a "feeling of sort of being in a time capsule." Andrew Cohen has a column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that is almost pure nostalgia: "But it’s not the closing of a restaurant that stings here. It is that something warm, comforting and familiar is passe." And then Cohen warns against nostalgia: it was also the age of bomb shelters and lead paint.

Something struck me in Cohen's story that might be more important than a brand going extinct. He reports, "The owners here in Lake Placid had been running their Howard Johnson’s since 1958, but were getting on. Their children were not interested." There was a time when it would have been very unusual for children to not continue the family business. Not so much anymore.

posted by Paul Tuns at 8:40 AM

 
Studying English without Shakespeare

There is a short piece at NRO by Ryan L. Cole on a new study of 50 top universities in the United States by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni which finds that just four schools require English majors to study Shakespeare: Harvard, UCLA, Wellesley, the U.S. Naval Academy. Cole notes that colleges offer courses on hip hop and Harry Potter, but that is a bit of bait-and-switch; they don't require these courses, they are not replacing Shakespeare with pop culture. These modern offerings are part of the smorgasbord of classes students can choose. Shakespeare is an elective and it would be fair to guess there are still more students studying Shakespeare than Jay-Z or J.K. Rowling. Cole says:

[P]erhaps we as a culture should remind ourselves that literature by authors who are “dead,“ “white,” “male,” and “Western” can certainly share space with more modern fields of study. If the academy and popular culture continue to insist on this fatuous association, many great ideas and beautiful works of art — from Michelangelo to Shakespeare to the Founding Fathers — will be closed off to rising generations of all backgrounds.

But that is what is happening. Shakespeare is sharing space with vampires and gender whatevers. And that is the problem. Equating an author who has withstood the test of time -- does anyway think we'll care about Kanye West or queer literary criticism in 450 years? -- to these pop culture fads misses the point of education. Instead, the English department cares more about economics and politics than literary greatness:

Part of the motivation is economic, as departments pander to their customers with courses on children’s literature, cinema, television, Harry Potter, and vampires. Another part is political, involving academia’s devaluing of Western classics and its hostility to anything white, male, or old, adjectives that supposedly mean irrelevant and ethnocentric.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:11 AM

 
2016 watch (Lindsey Graham edition)

George Will on Senator Lindsey Graham, who will be running for the GOP presidential nomination highlighting a more robust foreign policy, the entitlements crisis, and a welcoming foreign policy. Voters don't generally like truthful candidates -- or candidates who are truthful enough to talk about important issues, even when they are wrong about the solutions -- so we'll see what kind of traction Graham has. Will concludes his column:

“I’m somewhere between a policy geek and Shecky Greene,” the comedian. Campaigning, he says, “brings out the entertainer in you,” so his town hall meetings involve “15 minutes of standup, 15 minutes of how to save the world from doom, and then some questions.” He at least will enlarge the public stock of fun, which few, if any, of the other candidates will do.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:05 AM

 
You might not be a comedian ...

If you hire a cultural adviser to avoid being insensitive. Not that Adam Sandler was funny before.

posted by Paul Tuns at 6:29 PM

 
A limit on TFSAs

Economist Kevin Milligan, Armine Yalnizyan, and Finn Poschmann -- who generally skew Liberal, NDP, and Conservative -- agree that a lifetime limit on Tax-Free Savings Account makes sense. As Milligan says, "I think if you have @ArmineYalnizyan, Finn Poschmann, and me agreeing on something, then that policy is worth consideration." Good way for the Tories to win this round: raising yearly limits but capping lifetime contributions would go some way to defusing the class warfare criticism from Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair. The Financial Post explores the idea of a lifetime cap for TFSAs. Last month Yalnizyan touted lifetime limits as one way to ameliorate some concerns she had as a progressive economist.

posted by Paul Tuns at 3:50 PM

 
How do the feds know they are getting value in health care?

At the Policy Options blog of the IRPP, William Gardner, a pediatric mental health services researcher who blogs at the Incidental Economist, quotes federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose who said Ottawa and the provinces can't just "throw money" at health care and that they hope "to achieve better value for money." Gardner also notes that the Conservative government has scuttled a number of health care surveys and data-collection agencies and concludes, "taking health care value seriously means measuring it. Otherwise you’re just handwaving." Yes, there was a lot of overlap in health care research, but instead of duplication (as we had before) we're ending up with none.

posted by Paul Tuns at 3:41 PM

 
Do they just keep the John Bates Clark Award at Harvard

Roland Fryer has won the John Bates Clark Award for the best young economist. Greg Mankiw notes that the last three winners have a Harvard connection (faculty or PhD).

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:24 PM

 
2016 watch (One Tough Nerd edition)

Rick Snyder, a two-term governor of Michigan, is reported to be interested in running for the Republican presidential nomination because he talked to Jewish Republicans in Las Vegas. He is pro-business and socially "moderate," but signed right-to-work legislation. His name hasn't really come up much nor does he appear in most polls of possible contenders. It seems unlikely he will be a serious contender. Snyder's Twitter handle is OneToughNerd.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:09 PM

 
CROP-La Presse federal poll in Quebec

A CROP poll finds that the federal Tories have the support of 42% of decided voters, the NDP 24%, the Liberals 18%, and Bloc Quebecois 12%. There have been reports of Justin Trudeau's declining support in the province, but this seems wrong. We'll see if other polls can confirm this very large shift. The Tories were be doing well in previous polls that had the Liberals and NDP in the high 20s and Conservatives in the low 20s. If they are in the lead, we can talk about a larger Conservative majority.

If this is true, combined with my suspicion that the Liberals only pick up 2-3 seats in the GTA and don't actually sweep Toronto, there is a good chance that the NDP will remain the Official Opposition.

All that was wrong, based on an incorrect understanding of the translation. The correct numbers, via the Montreal Gazette, are: NDP 31, Liberals 29, Tories 19, Bloc Quebecois 18. The Tories have a massive lead in Quebec City (42% compared to 24% for the NDP). And the satisfaction rate with the Tories province-wide is up to 36%. All this suggests that Conservatives should pick up some seats in Quebec.

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:51 PM

 
Sex club seeking church status

The Associated Press reports, "A Nashville swingers club has undergone a conversion — it says it's now a church — in order to win city approval so it can open next to a Christian school." The Social Club property abuts the Goodpasture Christian School, and to remain open it is making changes, including its name:

The United Fellowship Center's plans are nearly identical to those of The Social Club but with some different labels. The dance floor has become the sanctuary. Two rooms labeled "dungeon" are now "choir" and "handbells." Forty-nine small, private rooms remain, but most of them have become prayer rooms.

As Michael Munger says, "the discretion to classify as a church, or not, is a pretty significant power for the state to have."

A reminder that former British Columbia premier and Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh wants Ottawa to license houses of worship.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:43 PM

 
Omar Khadr is being released and he will be dangerous

Ezra Levant says Omar Khadr is dangerous ... as a propaganda tool.

posted by Paul Tuns at 8:21 AM

 
Neo-prohibitionists are upset with ice cream-flavoured beer

At Hit & Run Baylen Linnekin notes that Ben & Jerry's is teaming up with New Belgium to make Salted Caramel Brownie Brown Ale, "an ice cream infused craft beer." Naturally, there's a group that is upset. An outfit called Alcohol Justice says think of the children while condemning the "crass, corporate greedy move." As Linnekin reminds readers, children are prohibited from buying beer. And Linnekin says if there are worries about ice cream-flavoured beer being a gateway drug, what about coffee-flavoured beer or Ben & Jerry's various homages to drug culture? Or the flavours that promote self-medicating, love-making, and alcohol use?

posted by Paul Tuns at 8:17 AM

 
Two on the Ontario PC race

Two articles by me on the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership from the May Interim.

"Exclusive interview with Monte McNaughton."

"Brown the ‘clear choice’ in Ontario PC leadership race."

In both articles McNaughton makes the point that if Christine Elliott wins, the Ontario PCs will become "Liberal Lite" and the province doesn't need "a second Liberal Party."

posted by Paul Tuns at 6:00 AM

 
Is Freud dead (enough)?

Tom Leonard in The Spectator: "Why American psychoanalysts are an endangered species":

New figures from the American Psychoanalytic Association reveal that the average age of its 3,109 members is 66, up four years in a decade. More seriously, the average numbers of patients each therapist sees has fallen to 2.75. Some shrinks now never meet patients, dealing with them only via the phone, Skype or email.

Cognitive behavioural therapy, psychotropic drugs, yoga, and meditation are alternatives to sessions on the couch. Is this a bad thing?

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:29 AM

 
It's all relative

A Guardian article about a Senate cook who has a second job to earn (an estimated) $44,000 in Washington leads Tim Worstall to note that sum is about "the median income for DC" and $8000 more to qualify for the global 1%.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:17 AM

 
The Mellow Heuristic

Bryan Caplan on choosing sides in intellectual and political debates when you don't know much about the topic:

The Mellow Heuristic is a rule of thumb for adjudicating intellectual disputes when directly relevant information is scarce. The rule has two steps.

Step 1: Look at how emotional each side is.

Step 2: Assume the less emotional side is right and the more emotional side is wrong.

Why should we believe the Mellow Heuristic tracks truth? Most obviously, because emotionality drowns out clear thinking, and clear thinking tends to lead to truth. The more emotional people are, the less clear thinking they do, so the less likely they are to be right ...

Like all heuristics, the Mellow Heuristic is imperfect. If Hannibal Lecter debated one of his traumatized victims, the Mellow Heuristic would probably conclude that Lecter was in the right. But it's a good heuristic nonetheless. On average, the calm are really are more reliable than the agitated.

Excellent rule of thumb.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:09 AM

 
The electoral politics of hyper-immigration

Investor's Business Daily editorializes:

And the politics behind all this continues. Homeland Security Department sources tell PJ Media's J. Christian Adams that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is "sending letters to all 9 million green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election."

On top of that, as the Washington Times' Stephen Dinan reported last week, deportations of illegals "have plummeted by another 25% so far this year," with just 117,181 immigrants deported in the six months since October.

As a landmark report from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum last year concluded, the annual flow of 1.1 million legal immigrants under the current system means more than 5 million new potential voters by 2024, and more than 8 million by 2028.

Since most who vote support Democrats, "the influx of these new voters would reduce or eliminate Republicans' ability to offer an alternative to big government, to increased government spending, to higher taxes, and to favorite liberal policies such as ObamaCare and gun control," Schlafly has warned.

She further argues that "there is nothing controversial about the report's conclusion that both Hispanics and Asians, who account for about three-fourths of today's immigrants, generally agree with the Democrats' big-government agenda," and therefore "vote two-to-one for Democrats."

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:04 AM

 
Isn't this above (even) her pay grade?

The Daily Caller reports that Hillary Clinton said, "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases [about abortion] have to be changed." The New York Times' Ross Douthat is surprised she didn't make this comment about same-sex marriage.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:30 PM

 
The kitchen sink of hot button issues in one headline

The Washington Times: "ACLU sues feds to force Catholic charities to provide abortions for illegal immigrants."

(HT: Hit & Run)

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:04 PM

 
The Ontario budget Link-o-Rama

The Ontario Ministry of Finance has the budget, speech, and press release. Enterprise Canada has a handy bulleted list of the major budget items.

The Globe and Mail with the most important story on the budget: "Ontario’s debt continues to climb, but investors will still buy it." This is a budget unlikely to move credit agencies, at least not yet.

Other notable media coverage. The Toronto Star has a good overview of the budget. CP24 says the main budget action is not on the taxes or spending side, but the sale of assets. The Globe and Mail reports that the budget spends on transit and scrimps on health and education. Also in the Globe and Mail, David Parkinson says the province misses the opportunity to tackle the deficit. The Windsor Star reports at how the budget affects the region (mega hospital, sports facility funding, possibility of extending high-speed rail to Windsor) including the possibility of an auto strategy. The Sun's coverage focuses on net debt (approaching $300 billion), growing infrastructure spending, and interest payments ($11.4 billion climbing by another $2 billion within four years). The Waterloo Region Record reports that the budget falls flat with local businesses and labour groups. The Toronto Star claims that everything you need to know about the budget is in their six charts. The CBC reports that budget contained no surprises.

There are four takeaways: a commitment to bring in an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan but no details, a commitment to enact a cap-and-trade system for carbon but no details, lots of infrastructure spending especially in large cities (and $100 million out of $130 billion over ten years for small cities, rural areas, and northern Ontario), and a balanced budget before the 2018 provincial election.

Oh, and this, from Anthony Furey on Twitter: "It took 150 years for Ontario to rack up the first $150 billion in debt. It took the Libs less than 15 yrs to double it."

TD Economics says the budget is more of the same: on track to balance the budget by 2018 is aided by more robust economic growth.

CIBC Economics says that economic growth helps the province stay on track of balancing the budget by 2018.

BMO Nesbitt Burns says that the budget is all about the province's credit rating. While the province appears on track, asset sales do not address structural problems.

RBC Economics Research the budget is mostly about infrastructure with a dash of deficit reduction.

KPMG looks at the province's tax regime, noting minimal changes in taxes. No changes in income or corporate tax rates. Changes in minor items like a reduction in the Ontario Production Services Tax Credit, a more significant reduction in the the Apprenticeship Training Tax Credit, and a shift in the taxation of trusts and estates. Media reports erroneously state that the only tax increase was on beer.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce calls the budget a "mixed bag," applauding the investment in infrastructure but lamenting the lack of action on other burdens facing businesses (especially the "plowing ahead with the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan").

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation condemned the tax-and-spend budget, and noted that there are cap-and-trade carbon and Ontario Retirement Pension Plan payroll taxes coming.

The NDP doesn't have a statement on their website. The PC Party says the budget doesn't deal with the debt or deficit.

The Ontario Medical Association is complaining that the 1.9% growth in health care spending is a "cut" that will continue the "drastic" underfunding of the health care system in the province.

Unifor sees reasons for optimism and concern: they like the money for transit and promise of an Ontario pension plan, but are skeptical of selling off parts of Hydro One.

Notable commentary. In the National Post, Andrew Coyne says there are numerous similarities between the federal and Ontario budget, except for fighting the deficit. Two folks from the Fraser Institute write in the Financial Post that the Liberal government once again postponed its tough decisions. The Toronto Sun's Christina Blizzard says that the government is raising more questions by their budget than they are answering them, as the Finance Minister and Premier offer "bafflegab" when challenged on their policies.

CP24 has a list of budget "winners and losers." The Toronto Star reports on significant reform in the Ontario Student Assistance Plan. The Canadian Press (via the Hamilton Spectator) suggests the Liberal government used a balanced approach. The CBC reports on the lack of movement to get insurance rates under control, other than a break for people who put on winter tires.

Hill and Knowlton has a cute approach examining the Liberal government's Progressive Conscience and Fiscal Conscience dueling in the budget.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:30 AM

 
FYI to Christine Elliott and her supporters

Saying winning a lot is not a plan to win or vision to win.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:06 PM

 
Still no plan

Justin Trudeau's email to Liberal supporters:

A Liberal government is committed to investing in jobs and growth for the middle class. We will make investments that will produce real growth, particularly through infrastructure, trade, post-secondary education, and skills and innovation.

To accomplish this we will cancel Stephen Harper's $2 billion tax break for those who need it least.

We will reverse the Conservative's decision to double the limit on tax-free saving accounts at the expense of tens of thousands of dollars in Old Age Security for seniors. The increased limit does nothing for the middle class, and only helps the rich.

Does this sound like the plan for you, friend? It won’t happen on its own, we need you to pitch in.

So we know what he's against, but still have no idea what he would do. The Conservative budget announced spending on infrastructure, trade, skills, and innovation, priorities for the Liberals. Do the Liberals support how the Tories would do it, or do they have a different plan? Or just a different price tag?

Justin Trudeau talks about OAS but how would he change it, other than reverse the government increasing the age of eligibility by two years (and thus ignore the demographic facts that people live longer than they did when Old Age Security was first implemented).

And if the TFSA is so wrong, why isn't Trudeau promising to reduce RRSP limits, also?

Saying you have a plan and saying what you are against is not the same thing as having a real plan that Canadians can look and consider: specific and costed details about what a Trudeau government would do to help the middle class.

posted by Paul Tuns at 9:50 AM

 
E-cigarettes and state regulation

George Will notes that the state, which benefits from taxing cigarettes, might have a conflict-of-interest when it regulates e-cigarettes because every smoker who finds an alternative to tobacco means less tax revenue for the government. Of course we don't ever apply conflict-of-interest criticisms to the state, but it is an example of Bootleggers and Baptists (marketeers and moralists) who have a mutual benefit in banning an activity that is, for one, an evil, and the other, a competitor. In the case of states regulating e-cigarettes, the government is both Bootlegger and Baptist.

posted by Paul Tuns at 8:42 AM

 
Don't let it be said that Stephen Harper is not a conservative

Some of my friends on the Right question Prime Minister Stephen Harper's commitment to conservatism, whatever the hell that means. (I've partook in this game myself at times.) One view of his conservative credentials is to see that he is making government smaller by reducing social program spending (as a percentage of GDP) and, perhaps more importantly, making it harder for the next prime minister to introduce any grandiose schemes of his own. Maclean's Paul Wells has long argued that Harper wants to starve the beast of state and he returns to that theme with this week's budget. Wells concludes his column:

Stephen Harper wants a federal government that does less, especially in social programs, than it did when he arrived in Ottawa. He will not compete with other parties for grandeur of vision. He will call their grandeur reckless. His discipline is formidable. Last week, the parliamentary budget officer said this budget will mark five years of continued reductions in federal direct program spending as a fraction of GDP. That decline in Ottawa’s share of the economy is unprecedented, the PBO said. Tuesday’s budget projects that the trend will nearly double in length, through 2019-20. If you don’t like it, if you think this trend line marks the frittering away of Canada’s collective ambition, then you know, more clearly than ever, whom not to vote for. Stephen Harper has laid his bet for the toughest election of his life.

Some of us would prefer the Conservative government to gut transfers to the provinces or take an ax to federal spending. Ideally, the Tories would slash taxes. But none of that is going to happen. But perhaps something almost as good in the longer term is happening.

posted by Paul Tuns at 8:32 AM

 
'Where Are the Pro-Life Utilitarians?'

Economist Bryan Caplan has a thoughtful and provocative post, "Where Are the Pro-Life Utilitarians?" Caplan, who is neither utilitarian nor pro-life, does believe human life is such a good that there should be people who think that the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy is trumped by the net positive benefit of being alive because even below-average lives are usually excellent. The reason there are few pro-life utilitarians is not so much because most pro-lifers hold that life is sacred, but because there are actually few utilitarians. Caplan suggests the few that actually exist might be inconsistent in their views by not being pro-life.

Caplan provides two utilitarian arguments for women not to have abortions. He says that "due to the endowment effect, unwanted children often become wanted by their birth mother once they're born." Also, "pregnant women who think 'A baby will ruin my life' are, on average, factually mistaken."

The comments are worth reading, too. One commenter points to an essay at Less Wrong that touches on some utilitarian arguments about abortion, "Compartmentalizing: Effective Altruism and Abortion," that considers the issue through the quality-adjusted life years prism. An important point in that piece is "many people make short sighted decisions that implicitly assign very little value to the futures of people currently alive, or even to their own futures." It is not surprising, then, that the preborn child's future is neglected. The difference between Caplan's proposed utilitarian pro-lifer and actual pro-lifers is that the latter consider human life to be a good in and of itself, whereas the former should acknowledge that life lived would be good.

When I have proposed utilitarian pro-life arguments to my fellow pro-lifers, they usually recoil in horror. It is often (rightly) seen as an attempt to secularize the pro-life view.

If you are interested in discussing this, email me at paul_tuns [AT] yahoo.com. I might be looking for a column along these lines for The Interim, Canada's pro-life newspaper.

posted by Paul Tuns at 5:53 AM

 
Resist clickbait

This is Indexed has a wonderful graph on why we should resist the ridiculous OMG clickbait.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:31 AM

 
MOOC experiment to get new people into university

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Arizona State University is teaming up with edX, a nonprofit platform for massive open online courses, to offer a full freshman-year curriculum to the public as it seeks to expand its student base and improve college attendance and graduation rates.

The program, Global Freshman Academy, will award up to a full year of academic credit to people who successfully complete eight web classes on general education subjects such as astronomy and Western civilization, designed and taught by Arizona State faculty.

Students can take the classes for no fee, or—after passing final exams—pay up to $200 per credit hour, or about $4,800 for the full year of credit. Those who finish the course sequence, which includes a mix of required and elective classes, would be able to apply to Arizona State for admission with sophomore standing.

Though the $4,800 price tag is a far cry from free, it is still significantly more affordable than a year of tuition at many U.S. colleges.

MOOCs -- massive open online courses -- generally are not used as on-ramp courses, so ASU's experiment is exciting. Considering there is some evidence for the declining value of a post-secondary education, a cheaper introduction to university for some students could be an important reform in higher education. The evidence, however, suggests it will be a challenge for the school to have this model work.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:26 AM

 
2016 watch (Carly Fiorina edition)

The Wall Street Journal reports that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina will announce she's running for the GOP presidential nomination online on May 4. A CNN poll found that she has just 2% support, behind 12 other candidates. Reminder to Fiorina: the presidency is not an entry-level political job. Voters generally want someone with electoral experience.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:17 AM

 
Where do Americans get their news

Quartz has an interesting GIF which shows that television is the most popular source of news for all age groups. Interestingly, millennials 26-31 read newspapers (print and online) at a slightly higher rate than Baby Boomers and Gen X ans significantly higher than younger millennials. Social media is almost as popular among younger millennials as television. Social media platforms and non-newspaper online sources are generally more popular with younger media consumers.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:09 AM

 
Our upside-down world

Foreign Policy wonders whether two New York "Chimps have more rights than a woman in Saudi Arabia?" Women in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are treated beastly while a New York state court is considering treating a pair of beasts in captivity as legal persons.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:02 AM

 
I hate when I agree with liberals

Gregg Easterbrook says that the United States needs a "resign to run law" as eight Republican officeholders "shirked their duties to promote selves."

posted by Paul Tuns at 7:05 PM

 
The internet and the illusion of knowledge

Tyler Cowen points to a Journal of Experimental Psychology article, "Searching for Explanations: How the Internet Inflates Estimates of Internal Knowledge," which finds, "searching the Internet for explanatory knowledge creates an illusion whereby people mistake access to information for their own personal understanding of the information." That is because many people do not appreciate "Cowen's First Law" which states, in part, "until you have found the major flaws in an argument, you do not understand it." I have long found that a little book knowledge -- knowing a lot of facts -- and a dash of clever snark fools a lot of people into thinking one is intelligent. At least it works for me.

posted by Paul Tuns at 11:27 AM

 
Cowen on trigger warnings

Tyler Cowen employs trigger warnings in his Law and Literature class, and tries to do so discreetly. Cowen says: "I don’t doubt that trigger warnings may be misused in some situations by some professors, but overall they seem to me like another small step to a better world. I do agree we need to liberate trigger warnings from the strictures of the PC movement, no argument there." At the same time he applauds his school, George Mason, attaining FIRE's highest ranking for free speech. Are these -- trigger warnings and free speech -- compatible? I'm doubtful.

posted by Paul Tuns at 11:23 AM

 
There is literally no end to the number of different sexual orientations

NRO's Katherine Timpf questions whether sapiosexual is a sexual orientation, noting that personality traits are really orientations. Timpf writes:

See — I had thought that simply saying you find intelligence attractive was a good enough way to convey that you find intelligence attractive, and that the phrase “sexual orientation” was reserved for describing something a little more integral to your identity than what you could flippantly mention as “recovering” from.

posted by Paul Tuns at 10:19 AM

 
Federal budget Link-o-Rama

The Department of Finance has the "budget plan," budget highlights, news release, speech, among other documents about the budget.

The Globe and Mail has the best overview of the budget. If you like charts, the Globe also has "Seven charts that explain the budget" -- or at least gives it context. According to the Ottawa Citizen, if there is a theme to the budget, it's financial relief for families and seniors. The Canadian Press reports on some of the smaller "social initiatives" like student loan changes, education for natives, and compassionate care leave. Maclean's has a look at what the budget means for Canadians.

The opposition parties are not impressed. The NDP: "Conservative budget stubbornly spends billions on wealthiest few." The Liberals: "Stephen Harper’s budget helps those who need it least."

CIBC Economics says that the federal budget is more of the same with promises of spending coming four or five years down the road.

TD Economics focuses on how oil prices have effected the federal budget: balanced despite lower revenues.

BMO Nesbitt Burns looks at the modest shifts in policy, few outside of family benefits and tax measures which will affect most people.

Scotia Bank Global Economics focuses on the balanced budget and the beginning of repaying some of the debt. Scotia Bank GE also a brief summary of Ottawa's debt management strategy.

RBC Economics Research parrots the government's claim that it is a responsible fiscal manager.

KPMG lists all the tax implications of the budget for individuals and companies.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business thinks the budget is very good for small businesses, giving it an A.

Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters applauds the job training, research, and trade support programs in the budget.

Mike Moffat, an economist who serves on Justin Trudeau's council of economic advisers, says the budget is a good one for the manufacturing industry.

Polytechnics Canada is pleased with the federal government's support of skills enhancement and innovation programs.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation applauds the balanced budget, likes the tax relief, but is worried about the growth of spending.

The United Food and Commercial Workers goes all Occupy with their analysis complaining that the "Budget balances the needs of the 1% against everyone else." UNIFOR takes a more moderate tact to make the same point: "Budget fails to help struggling Canadians."

The anti-poverty group Oxfam says not enough is being done for the poor in Canada or around the world, calling on Ottawa to increase foreign aid and funding for reproductive health abroad.

The Toronto Sun editorializes that it is a "safe but prudent budget." The Toronto Star editorial complains that the Conservative budget prioritizes Tory priorities.The National Post editorial says there is no hidden agenda in the budget: modest government.

Two columns in the National Post worth reading. Andrew Coyne: "Tory budget not proposing smaller government but big government that lives within its means." John Ivison: "Conservatives achieve balanced budget with disciplined spending and a dose of pixie dust."

Post Media's Stephen Maher serves as the Liberal stenographer in claiming the budget helps the rich and has nothing for the middle or working classes.

John Geddes of Maclean's points out the obvious: the budget is also a political document. It's almost like there is an election in six months. The Globe and Mail editorializes that the budget could be politically advantageous for the Conservatives. The Toronto Star's Chantal Hebert reminds readers that a feel-good budget today is no guarantee of electoral victory in October, especially if voters are getting tired of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Jason MacDonald of Hill & Knowlton puts the budget-as-election-document in context: it frames the debate in the Prime Minister's favour. Hill & Knowlton also looks at the "electoral influence" on the budget.

The Montreal Gazette reports that Quebec's Liberal government doesn't think Ottawa gave enough money to the provinces. The Toronto Sun reports that the Ontario Liberals have the same complaint. The Star-owned Hamilton Spectator has a similar story: crumbs, says Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa. The Canadian Press reports that New Brunswick's Liberal government wanted more generous transfer payments. According to another CP story, British Columbia's Liberal government seems okay with the budget and what it does for the western-most province. The Regina Leader-Post reports that the Saskatchewan government was expecting more money for instrastructure. The Winnipeg Free Press reports that Brian Bowman welcomes the federal public transit fund, even if he doesn't know how much Winnipeg will get from it. Even Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi applauded the public transit funding.

The Canadian Press lists the supposed budget winners and losers. Among the losers, both "climate change' and "oil and gas industry."

A key point is that the balanced budget is possible because Ottawa continues to collect about $3-4 billion more annually in Employment Insurance premiums than it pays out in benefits. The Halifax Chronicle Herald reports on the recent habit of the government raiding the EI surplus to balance the budget. And yet the best line about the budget comes from the National Post's editorial: "simply restoring Ottawa’s finances to the point where the size of the budget balance is a matter about haggling over accounting practices is a real achievement."

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:00 AM