The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine Gears Up

Deeply affronted, perhaps even frightened by the recent change to the Ontario budget that will impose an increase of 2% on the income of those making over $500,000 per year, the right-wing has been busy cranking out its anti-tax propaganda. Lest anyone think that a return to some form of progressive taxation is a good idea, two groups with charitable institution status are most charitably taking the time to point out the error of our thinking.

The first out of the gate was The Fraser Institute, which recently released a 'study' telling Canadians that we are paying far too much tax as it is. According to that study, we hapless citizens are paying more in taxes at all levels than we are on the basic necessities of life.

Following in their footsteps, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute kindly informs us that the rich pay more than their fair share of taxes, and hitting them harder won’t solve all the problems of the poor.

While you can read both reports through the links provided, I'd like to offer a few of my own observations here. First, the Fraser report conveniently ignores the fact that in terms of total tax burden, Canada ranks in the middle of countries listed in a Forbes-commissioned study for 2009. Coming in at #33 out of 65 countries measured, the study provides some much-need context absent from the Frasier hysteria.

Next, the above-mentioned study shows that the United States, coming in at #21 in the rankings, has a significantly higher tax burden, much of it apparently allocated in ways that do not benefit the majority of people. (Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, on Terror, on Drugs and against Occupiers, corporate tax cuts and subsidies readily come to mind as quick examples.)

Despite that higher tax burden, U.S. citizens are mired in much higher costs for health care, the cause of 60% of their bankruptcies in 2009, thanks both to the occurrence of catastrophic illness and the absence of taxpayer-supported public health insurance.

In terms of education, while annual tuition for a basic undergraduate degree in Canada ranges from just over $2000 to about $6000, those in the United States are anywhere from about $13000 to over $41,000, excluding Florida, which appears to have the lowest tuition at $5700.

Of course, one of the key reasons for the disparity in educational costs is the proportion of taxation each country allocates to education; Canada sees subsidized education as a worthwhile investment since society as a whole stands to benefit.

Finally, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute avers that increasing taxes on the wealthy won’t solve all the problems of the poor. I can't think that anyone has suggested it will; what has been asserted, however, is that having a truly progressive system of taxation that is wisely administered will, in fact, allow for the continuation and expansion of programs to help the disenfranchised become fully-participating members of our society, something that those inhabiting right-wing towers seem to forget is a core value the majority of Canadians hold dear.

So no, speaking as a member of the middle class who wants to maintain and enhance the quality of life in this country, taxation is not a dirty word. Contrary to the fraught hyperbole of the so-called think tanks that are subsidized through my taxes, all I ask and expect is that my dollars be used for the betterment of all, not to simply bolster the net worth of the wealthy.

We Have The Fraser Institute, They Have the Heartland Institute

Adding the word 'institute' into one's 'think-tank', a measure devised to give the patina of legitimacy to what is frequently simply a right-wing propaganda machine, is nothing new, given their ubiquity on both sides of the border, the Fraser Institute and the Macdonald Laurier Institute in Canada, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute in the U.S. being but four examples.

For whatever reason (and a lower collective intelligence may be one of them, he opined snarkily - my abject apologies to any intelligent Americans who might read this), American citizens seem to be more easily swayed by the blandishments masked as researched offered by these organizations.

As reported in today's Star, the Heartland Institute has plans to push for a public school curriculum questioning climate change. The leaked papers from the Heartland Institute has created a controversy within the scientific community as the American Association for the Advancement of Science gathers in Vancouver. This is the first time it is holding its annual meeting outside of the United States:

The documents, which were released via email and then reposted on blogs, say school teachers and principals are “heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective.”

Scientists say it is a frightening sign that much of the public remains skeptical about global warming.

“There are forces at work,” said Nina Fedoroff, president of the AAAS. “The polling data show that the fraction of citizens who believe that climate change is real has declined since 2006. Even as the scientific consensus has increased, the belief in it has declined.”

One can only hope that American teachers are able to put up a strong resistance to this well-funded propaganda machine.