Mediaboss Marketing

In The Weekly Wrap Sean Speer, our editor-at-large, analyses for Hub subscribersthe big stories shaping politics, policy, and the economy in the week that was.

Although the prime minister had already announced most of its signature measures over the previous week or so, this weeks budget still contained one notable surprise: an increase to the capital gains tax rate for capital gains above $250,000 for individuals and at any level for corporations and trusts.

We had anticipated the budget would set out tax increases for corporations and high-income earnersin fact, the March 9 edition of the Weekly Wrap warned that the budget might appeal to class warfarebut we didnt expect changes to the capital gains tax regime. The disincentives for entrepreneurship and investment seemed too high in the face of a stagnant economy, low business investment, and declining productivity.

The budget proposal, which is projected to raise nearly $20 billion in new revenues over the next five years, has generated significant criticism from entrepreneurs and investors who rightly warn that it will discourage business start-ups and capital investment. Calgary-based investor Derrick Hunter has written about these risks for The Hub.

At a time when the Canadian economy is in high demand of capital to expand the housing supply, increase business starts, and boost productivity, this is a counter-productive policy. Theres a considerable body of research that shows that capital taxes are among the most economically damaging forms of taxation. The economic costs of extracting this capital from investors and handing it over to the federal government are therefore likely to be significant. Especially since it wasnt offset by accompanying tax reductions as Hub contributor Trevor Tombe set out in his post-budget analysis.

It prompts the question: why is the Trudeau government doing this?

We know for instance from former Finance Minister Bill Morneau that its been something the government had considered and rejected in the past. It strikes me that there are three explanations for adopting it now.

Whatever the ultimate balance of factors behind the governments decision, the economic effects are still the same: hiking taxes on capital is bound to worsen Canadas investment climate and ultimately its economy as a whole.

The Trudeau government has sought to define this weeks budget in terms of generational fairness. It spoke for instance of the need to restore a fair chance for Millenials and Gen Z. Finance Minister Chrystia Freelands budget speech even claimed that we find ourselves at a pivotal moment for these cohorts.

This political positioning is understandable yet insufficient. Theres plenty of evidence that younger Canadians are feeling anxious and agitated about their circumstances. They cannot afford homes. Theyre delaying marriage and family formation. And, as we outlined this week in The Hubs first bi-weekly DeepDive, theyre increasingly unhappy.

The numbers are striking. Younger Canadians used to report higher levels of happiness than older Canadians. Not anymore. Canadians under age 30 are now on average less happy. Canadas overall level of satisfaction ranked number 15 in this years World Happiness Report. But if you limit it to younger Canadians, we actually fall to number 58 along with countries like Paraguay, Malaysia, and China.

Theres a tendency to observe these dynamics through the lens of politics. A key reason that the budget is so focused on this cohort is because it has abandoned the Liberal Party en masse. The Conservative Party of Canada is the only centre-right party in the Anglo-American world that currently has a political advantage among younger voters. These developments challenge long-standing political axioms about the interaction between demographics and political preferences.

But the biggest issue here isnt politics. Theres something far more concerning about the demographic, socio-economic and even psychological effects of large numbers of young Canadians experiencing failure to launch syndrome. It can have long-run costs and consequences for individuals and society as a whole.

Its not a coincidence for instance that the fertility rate is at an all-time low at the same time that Canadians under age 30 are reporting rising levels of unhappiness. Causality is doubtless working in both directions.

An unmarried, childless future in an ugly and overpriced, small downtown apartment is a rather grim proposition. Nothing in the totality of human experience tells us that these are the conditions for human flourishing or a successful society.

Some of the budget measures may help on the margins. But one does get the sense that theres something bigger going on here and technocratic solutions are a necessary yet insufficient response. Howard Anglins article for The Hub this weekend about building aesthetics, textured neighbourhoods, and what Tim Carney calls family-friendly communities starts to get closer to some of the underlying factors behind this generational malaise. One could also point to the void of spiritual questionsthough thats beyond the scope of public policy and certainly this essay.

I would however make the case for a lack of growth and progress as a key (and perhaps the key) explanatory factor. Here I may respectfully part company with Anglin. I dont think that people are telling us that things are moving too fast. I think in a lot of ways theyre telling us that theyre moving too slow. I subscribe to the Douthian argument that economic and technological stagnation (outside of narrow cones of progress), cultural conformity and replication, and the absence of a common project have contributed to a self-reinforcing mix of stagnancy, sterility, and drift.

Douthats solution to what he calls decadence is a combination of divine intervention and renewed technological progress (So down on our kneesand start working on that wrap drive.).

Maybe hes right. But either way, these are the precise questions that we ought to be asking before we consign a generation or two of young Canadians to an uninspiring and unfulfilling future.

Today marks something far more important than politics or public policy: its the start of the NHL playoffs and the Toronto Maple Leafs elusive search for their first Stanley Cup since 1967.

George Will likes to say that he writes about politics to support his baseball habit. I can relate. The only job that I can envision leaving The Hub for is really any role with the Maple Leafs, from team president to the guy who fills the water bottles.

Ive loved hockey ever since I can remember. I played a lot as a young personthough not particularly well. I recently wrote about my playing days, including the occasional fight, for Cardus Comment Magazine. You can find my essay here.

Will also often says that at an age too young to make life-shaping decisions, he had to choose between becoming a Chicago Cubs fan or a St. Louis Cardinals fan. Most of his friends became Cardinals fans and grew up cheerful and liberal. He chose the Cubs and grew up a gloomy conservative.

Again, I can relate. Being a Leafs fan is good training for a conservative. Its a steadfast lesson in low expectations and the inherent fallibility of man.

But Im a North American conservative so Im susceptible, however wrongheaded, to a unique continental optimism. I cant help but succumb against my better judgment to a quixotic hopefulness.

No matter how hard one tries, the Leafs invariably tempt you into believing that this year is different. Last years first-round win against the Tampa Bay Lightning set off those feelings for me. The swift second-round defeat to the Florida Panthers caused a precipitous fall back to reality.

This season Ive once again watched most of the games. I began the year determined to protect myself from inevitable disappointment. But somewhere along the way, perhaps due to Auston Matthews 69 goals or the group-think of my hockey chat groups (yes, there are two), Ive come, at an almost sub-conscious level, to believe that this might be the year.

If so, Ill need to bring my boys to Toronto for the parade because even though theyre only one and three years old, theres a good chance that it wont happen again in their lifetimes.

I suppose this is a long way of saying that if Im a bit distracted in the coming days (and hopefully weeks) its because Im focused on my real passion: hockey. Hopefully, politics and policy will cooperate and take a break for a while.

Until then, Maple Leafs forever!

See the rest here:
The Weekly Wrap: The Liberals lean all the way into class warfare - The Hub

But theres reason to believe that voters have come to these conclusions on their ownor at least not at the mainstream medias behest. Although coverage of Bidens verbal miscues has been widespread both online and in conservative media, it has only recently begun to regularly appear in mainstream outlets like the Times and CNN. Voters think that its important, and these outlets have, belatedly, begun to treat it as newsworthy. One could quibble about the fairness of these concerns given the relatively insignificant age difference between Biden and Trump, but there is no doubting that the concerns are widespread. Even Democrats on Capitol Hill have voiced them.

Part of the delight in Trump falling asleep comes from the fact that its seen as a kind of market correction: Now the media will have to cover Trumps age the way it has covered Bidens. At the same time, it also feels like a gift in kind: It muddies the waters, allowing the presidents defenders to argue that the other guy is also really old. (Theyve already been doing that for a while, to be fair.)

Still, there are a number of reasons to believe that this is not a particularly wise course of action for Democrats. For one, voters overwhelmingly think that Biden is older than Trump (because he quite literally is), and raising the salience of the age issue would likely backfire even more than it already has. Experience was once a winning issue for Biden; in 2020, many voters looked to him as a steady hand who could help steer the country out of the Covid-19 pandemic. Today, its a clear loser: He is seen as lacking the fitness and stamina for the job. Telling voters that the other guy also doesnt have fitness and stamina may not be a winning issue. At the very least, it could push voters toward comparably chipper third-party candidates like Cornel West and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who are both 70.

Originally posted here:
Liberals Are Trying to Make Trump's Age an Issue. It Won't Work. - The New Republic

Dear Editor: Reading is Everything records a milestone that remedied the education establishments greatest failure of the past three decades namely its trenchant rejection of phonics, which is the only proven method to teach kids to read who do not have enriched homelives. It took Mississippis stunningly effective adoption of phonics Mississippi! to bring us to our senses.

Not mentioned, however, is a key omission highlighting our humble need to understand that we liberals suffer from our own tribalism, not all that dissimilar to the right-wing, whom we routinely mock.

Tragically, the reason liberal educators willfully ignored 30 years of research inexcusably leaving generations of Black youth functionally illiterate in todays information age is because it was conservatives who first loudly championed phonics. In our own tribal shortsightedness, our brethren could not admit that "the other" might be right.

This rot within from overweening pride has become a pattern. Progressives have a long history that they should be proud of. But today those traditions have become corrupted by sincere but feverish bouts of badly counterproductive and performative morality plays. But because its advocates claim the progressive mantle, we are unable to see the glaring contradictions.

Thus, some now contend that the left should oppose free speech, support loyalty oaths, adopt McCarthy tactics, reject free thinkers, champion bowdlerizing the great classics of literature and succumb to the delusion that racial progress can come out of anger and revenge.

Hopefully understanding the phonics debacle will bring us to our senses.

Peter Anderson

Madison

Send your letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Original post:
Letter | Liberal tribalism led to downfall of phonics - The Capital Times

QUEBEC The Quebec Liberal Party says its leadership race will begin next January and the winner will be chosen in June 2025.

Former leader Dominique Anglade stepped down weeks after the 2022 provincial election, during which the party maintained official Opposition status but lost 10 seats.

Marc Tanguay has served as interim leader since.

Candidates will each have to make a $40,000 deposit with the party, obtain 750 signatures from 70 ridings and 12 regions, and sign up 350 new members.

Campaign expenses are capped at $400,000, and members will cast votes over six days with a leadership convention to be held on June 14, 2025.

No one has officially declared their candidacy, but current Liberal member Frdric Beauchemin and former Montreal mayor Denis Coderre have expressed interest.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 19, 2024.

The Canadian Press

Read more from the original source:
Quebec Liberals will choose new leader during convention in June 2025 - Yahoo News Canada

Open this photo in gallery:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and cabinet ministers speak before tabling of the federal budget on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on April 16.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press

For nearly a decade, the Liberals have been a borrow-and-spend government, going so far as to preach the absolute virtue of debt financing.

But the party of borrow and spend is no more, with the government venturing in the 2024 budget that it would be irresponsible and unfair to pass on more debt to the next generations.

Unfortunately for Canadians, the upshot of that thought is not a move to restrain federal spending in order to limit the rise in debt.

Instead, Ottawas spending spree will continue but will now be financed with hefty new taxes, totalling $21.9-billion over five years.

The borrow-and-spend Liberals have been replaced by the tax-and-spend Liberals.

In a very limited way, that is good news: the Liberals will hit the fiscal marks that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland promised last year in the Fall Economic Statement. Tax increases will offset some of the inflationary impact of higher federal spending. Even so, debt charges are forecast to rise to $64.3-billion by fiscal 2029, up from $35-billion in fiscal 2023, as the outlook for interest rates ticks up. That trend underscores the fiscal dangers lurking later this decade.

More broadly, Canada faces a productivity crisis (although that is not among the many crises enumerated in the budget) that threatens to erode this countrys living standards and erase the hopes for a more prosperous future. In fairness, the budget does sound the alarm over Canadas prosperity problem: Looking forward, we have an urgent need to increase productivity to grow the Canadian economy.

The Liberals then proceed to attempt to ignore those concerns. The recent decline in GDP per capita? That is a temporary phenomenon, driven by a surge in immigration, that will fade as newcomers integrate into the Canadian economy, the budget ventures. An interesting thesis and one at least partly at odds with the governments plan to ramp up permanent immigration this decade.

Acknowledging the extent of the problem would require doing something about it: reducing regulatory barriers to investment, bolstering the profit incentive for private investment and loosening Ottawas grip on the economy.

The Liberals head in the opposite direction, in the name of fairness. Program spending is slated to rise to 16 per cent of GDP in the current fiscal year, up from 15.6 per cent last year.

There are no broad-based tax cuts, but rather a significant increase in the taxation of capital gains, by boosting the inclusion rate to two-thirds, up from 50 per cent, for gains above $250,000. Those higher taxes are only slightly offset by boutique tax credits and investment incentives, yet another way for the government to intervene in the market economy.

The program allowing for accelerated capital cost allowances for corporations is still being phased out, even as a program targeted at information-technology expenditures is introduced. Too bad if a companys plan for boosting profits, productivity and pay doesnt centre on computers. Similarly, there is favourable tax treatment for entrepreneurs capital gains but only in favoured sectors.

And yet, there are nuggets within the federal budget that could have been the start of an ambitious agenda to jump-start the Canadian economy.

The information-technology tax break could be a good start to spurring an investment surge. The government is, wisely, taking aim at the lengthy process for regulatory approvals for major projects. Returning fuel charge revenue to small businesses, while long overdue, is preferable to an overly intricate grants program.

There are hints of what a push to roll back the public sector might look like: Ottawa will sell off a big chunk of its office space. The public service will shrink through attrition (although not by nearly enough to offset the hiring spree under the Trudeau government). Most intriguingly, the Liberals are opening the door to private sector investment in airports, which would be an elegant response to the calls to boost pension fund investment in Canada.

That could have been the nucleus of a pro-growth budget, one that would have been far less worried about income redistribution and much more concerned about creating wealth in the first place.

Fairness is a fine thing, but all the fairness in the world wont fix Canadas prosperity problem.

The rest is here:
Globe editorial: The Liberals move from borrow and spend, to tax and spend - The Globe and Mail