Tuesday, November 5, 2013

November 2013 Local Candidates and Issues

On my local ballot this election, there are four positions up for grabs on the Whatcom County Council, two positions with the Port of Bellingham, two positions on the Bellingham City Council, and one position on the School Board. There is also a school levy.

County Council
I try not to be a single-issue voter, but county politics has become completely engulfed by the Gateway Pacific Terminal issue. In a nutshell, the GPT would become a port for coal shipments. The coal would be shipped here on trains, then out through the GPT to the rest of the world. Environmental activists oppose it because it's coal; unions support it because it means good jobs. Liberals have been walking a balancing act, trying to keep the support of both the environmental lobby and the unions; conservatives support the GPT for the same reason the unions do.

My position is that there are standard environmental reviews in place for projects like this already. Those reviews should be allowed to run their course without undue political influence one way or the other. In this case, it's the environmentalists who are arguing for special exemptions to prevent the GPT, so my position casts me with the unions and the conservatives.

In the current election, that means I am voting for Kathy Kershner, Ben Elenbaas, Michelle Luke and Bill Knutzen for County Council. All four of these candidates have been endorsed by both the county Republican and Libertarian parties. Sealing the deal: the opponents of these four candidates have run campaigns demonizing them as "Tea Party endorsed" (when the local Tea Party makes a point to not endorse any candidates) while playing up their own endorsements by Planned Parenthood and the Democrats.

Port of Bellingham
I am voting for Renata B. Kowalczyk over Dan Robbins for Port Commissioner. While the Democrats have endorsed Kowalczyk and the Republicans have endorsed Robbins, both oppose the Blue-Green Coalition's call for a "living wage zone" at the Port. Both support industrial development at the Port. But based on the limited statements I can find from both candidates, Kowalczyk seems to have a more in-depth understanding of what the Port Commissioner has to do and the issues the Port faces.

In the other Port Commissioner race, I am voting for Ken Bell over Mike McAuley. Bell supports the GPT. He also has experience in the private sector cleaning up hazardous waste sites, which is exactly what the Port needs to do with the waterfront.

Bellingham City Council
In my ward, I am voting for Clayton Petree over Pinky Vargas. Petree has the experience needed for council, while after announcing her run, Vargas had to rely on one of the city's most reliably liberal blog writers to give her what he called a "crash course" on the important issues. Petree also opposed the fireworks ban, and I believe can be counted on to oppose the random little bans that the current city council loves so much.

For the Council-At-Large position, my preferred candidate from the primary did not make it to the general. Of the two remaining candidates, both are pretty bad, but Roxanne Murphy is not as bad as Bob Burr.
Bellingham School District 501
Of the three candidates in the primary for the school board, the one I did not consider due to a lack of information lost. In the primary, I voted for Steven Smith over John H. Blethen. Now that those two are running in the general election, I will again vote for Steven Smith.

The school district is also putting forward a levy this election. That levy, Proposition 2013-1 would allow the district to borrow $160 million to be used for "construction." Much of that will be going towards nicer administrative buildings, including $5 million for artificial grass. The district still owes $59 million from the $67 million bond that was passed in 2007. The new bond amounts to $2000 for every man, woman and child in Bellingham, not counting interest charges. To pay it back, the levy would raise the property tax we pay for schools by an astonishing 54%, with promises to cut it back to just a 32% raise in six years (if you believe that). I say the people of Bellingham should keep their own money, and the school district can let the natural grass grow instead of borrowing money to install artificial grass. I am voting NO on Proposition 2013-1.

County Council: Kathy Kershner, Ben Elenbaas, Michelle Luke, Bill Knutzen
Port Commissioners: Renata B. Kowalczyk, Ken Bell
City Council: Clayton Petree, Roxanne Murphy
School Board: Steven Smith
School Levy: NO

November 2013 Statewide Issues

I find I have left this blog unattended for longer than I meant, but once again, it is time to vote, so I'm back. There are two state initiatives, a few advisory votes and a slew of local candidates to consider, plus one local issue. In this entry, I'll cover the statewide issues: I-517 regarding initiative reform, I-522 regarding GMO labelling and advisory votes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, regarding tax increases passed by the state legislature.

I-517: Initiative Reform
First up is I-517, which reforms the initiative process in Washington state. I-517 includes four key reforms:
  1. It increases the time allowed to gather signatures for initiatives from ten months to sixteen months. Allowing at least a year (the time between elections) for gathering signatures seems like a reasonable reform.
  2. Any initiative that receives enough signatures must be placed on the ballot for a vote, eliminating the possibility of interference from local officials. Here in Bellingham, we recently had an initiative against red light cameras that was blocked by a lawsuit from the company that had been given the contract to install the cameras. This is an obviously needed reform.
  3. Official signature gatherers currently have the same legal protections as any other citizen standing on the street. I-517 would make it disorderly conduct (a misdemeanor) to "interfere with or retaliate against a person collecting signatures or signing any initiative or referendum petition..." Exactly what that means is defined by a long list in the initiative of actions that you shouldn't be doing to anybody anyway, whether or not they're collecting signatures. The claim by Riley Sweeney that "if you told someone to go jump in a lake when they asked for your signature, they could sue you for harassment" is simply false if you read the actual text of I-517 (I suppose, technically, anyone can sue anyone else for harassment, but that doesn't mean they have a snowball's chance of winning). Since gathering signatures is a required step for we citizens to exercise our right to petition the government, some special protection for those gathering and providing the signatures seems appropriate.
  4. I-517 also defines the places where signature gathering will be protected. According to the text of the initiative, official signature gathering "shall be a legally protected activity" in three types of places:
    1. "...inside or outside public buildings..." This one seems obvious--if the buildings truly are public (unlike national parks and memorials, as we found out during the recent shutdown), then you should be able to collect signatures in these public places.
    2. "...on public sidewalks and walkways..." Again, this seems obvious if these places are to be considered truly public.
    3. "...all sidewalks and walkways that carry pedestrian traffic, including those in front of entrances and exits of any store..." This is the one part of I-517 that might cause problems. Opposition to I-517 says this violates property rights. It certainly gives property owners less control over what happens on their property, which I don't like. That said, under I-517, signature gatherers are not allowed inside private buildings, nor are they allowed anywhere members of the public normally aren't, nor are they allowed in open areas that aren't sidewalks or walkways, nor are they allowed to do things (such as stalking, threatening or assault) that normal people can't do. Furthermore, existing law doesn't have a well-defined limit for where signature-gathering is or is not legal on private property, and this issue has gone to the courts several times. I-517's outside-walkways rule, while imperfect, is better than no rule at all.
Conclusion: Vote YES on I-517 to protect the initiative process for a better democracy.

I-522: GMO Labeling
The only other statewide initiative is I-522, which establishes a labeling system for food containing genetically-modified organisms. To decide which way to vote on I-522, I must ask three sequential questions, all of which must have an affirmative answer to vote for I-522. Those three questions are the following:
  1. Should genetically-modified food be labelled as such? I think the answer is likely yes. To be clear, I believe the science that says GMOs are safe. They have been in use now for nearly two decades and are likely in the majority of our food with no apparent side effects. Genetic engineering has been happening for millennia through hybridization; GMOs are simply a more direct way to get the genes that we want into the organisms that we want. If anything, I would trust the genetics of a GMO more than some random animal that came out of some field. That said, I know not everyone agrees with me. One of the necessary prerequisites to having a well-functioning free market is the freedom of information, and if people believe that they don't want GMO food, it is their right to avoid it.
  2. If GMOs should be labelled, should such labeling be required by the government? Here, I think the answer is likely no. The federal government already certifies organic food, and certified organic food cannot contain GMOs. For non-organic non-GMO food, private organizations like the Non-GMO Project are already picking up the slack. Since lots of people want to buy non-GMO food, there is a huge incentive for the private market to supply that information even without government requirements.
  3. If GMO labeling should be required, is I-522 the right way to do it? The answer here is a definite no. While I-522 requires labels for many foods, there are quite a few exceptions, including alcoholic beverages, food served at restaurants and medical food. If labels are so important for public health, why are there so many exceptions? Moreover, while the state's Department of Agriculture is usually in charge of food safety and labeling, GMO labels would be regulated by the Department of Health. This may seem small, but it likely means food produces will have twice the paperwork and have to go through twice the bureaucracy. It also means the Department of Health would have to duplicate a regulatory infrastructure that the Department of Agriculture already has in place.
Conclusion: While GMO labeling is good, government regulation is unnecessary and I-522 is the wrong way to regulate it. Vote NO on I-522.
Advisory Votes
In Washington state, thanks to a 2007 initiative, any tax increase passed by the legislature is submitted to the people for an advisory vote. The results are not binding, but they do ensure the public is aware of all tax increases, even ones the media doesn't deem important enough to mention. The advisory votes also give voters a chance to give the legislature some much-needed feedback.

This year, there are five advisory votes, numbered 3 through 7 (A-1 and A-2 were on 2012's ballot). In deciding how to vote, I've followed a simple rule: Taxes should be lower and simpler. That means increases in tax rates and new special taxes on specific groups should be repealed, but that bills that eliminate special credits for specific groups should be maintained.

A-3 Substitute Senate Bill 5444
This bill eliminated a tax credit for taxpayers who lease public property. Taxes should be the same whether you're leasing publicly-owned or privately-owned property. This eliminates an unfair tax credit, so it should be MAINTAINED.

A-4 Senate Bill 5627
This bill imposed a tax on commuter air carriers "in lieu of property tax." Why do air carriers need a special tax? The Washington State Budget and Policy Center has the context: "Senate Bill 5627 was championed by Governor Inslee in order to reduce taxes for Kenmore Air, a commuter air carrier located in Washington state. ... Although Kenmore Air will pay an additional $35,000 per year in aircraft excise taxes, its state and local property tax bills will fall by about $51,000 per year, a cost that will automatically be recouped through higher property tax bills for other homeowners and businesses." The Legislature, at the behest of the Governor, is shifting property taxes from one favored company to other disfavored companies and homeowners. Obviously, this should be REPEALED.

A-5 Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1846
This bill eliminated a tax exemption for pediatric oral services from the insurance premium tax. As a consequence, it also ensures that dental services purchased outside the new health care exchange do not face a tax disadvantage compared to those purchased within the exchange. While it would be preferable not to have an insurance premium tax in the first place, given that there is such a tax, it should apply as fairly as possible. This bill should be MAINTAINED.

A-6 Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1971
This bill eliminated a tax exemption in the retail sales tax for some telephone and telecommunications services. Specifically, cell phone service was subject to the sales tax while landlines were not; instead landlines were subject to two special excise taxes. This bill eliminate the excise taxes and extended the sales tax to landlines, so that the same tax applies to all telephone services. This bill should be MAINTAINED.

A-7 Engrossed House Bill 2075
This bill extended the sales tax to some property transfers and raised the tax rates for estates over $4 million. This is a complicated one. On the one hand, it closes a loophole in the estate tax that was introduced by the courts. Closing loopholes and simplifying taxes is always good, and if that was the extent of what this bill did, I would vote to maintain. However, the legislature also introduced a new loophole for businesses, and to make up the revenue from the new loophole, raised the tax rate. Tax rates do not need to be raised and new loopholes do not need to be added, so this bill should be REPEALED.

I-517: YES
I-522: NO

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

August 2013 Primary Election

I should've done this earlier, but I didn't, so here I am! We are having a primary election right now which ends tonight, so I guess it's time to figure out who I'm voting for. There are two races on the ballot, and I'll look at them one at a time.

Bellingham City Council At-Large
There are three candidates for this at-large position. Their biographical info and positions can be found here. The important issues are whether taxes should be raised to address the city's budget deficit (they should not) and whether the city should do more to oppose the Gateway Pacific Terminal (it should not, mostly because it's outside the city limits and none of the city's business, but also because the GPT would be good for the region and create jobs).

Bob Burr says, "Raising taxes certainly is an option that must be considered with an open mind." Roxanne Murphy prefers "regular and creative budget improvement avenues before a tax increase would be considered." (I have no idea what that actually means.) Allen Brown gives a single word answer: "NO". Point goes to Allen Brown.

Gateway Pacific Terminal
Bob Burr says, "Absolutely" the city should do more to oppose the GPT because it "would be disastrous to our City." Roxanne Murphy is more nuanced in her opinion, but still says, "I’m opposed to the Gateway Pacific Terminal as a Lettered Streets resident who lives near the railroad tracks..." Allen Brown says no, the city should not do more to oppose the GPT because public opinion is split. He also says, "As long as the project meets current environmental and safety regulations, we cannot obstruct." Point to Allen Brown.

Conclusion: Vote for Allen Brown
Allen Brown opposes tax increases and at the very least doesn't want the city to oppose the GPT. Both Murphy and Burr are open to tax increases and both want the city to take a stand againsts the GPT. The choice is clear--I'm voting for Allen Brown.

Bellingham School District Director
There are three candidates for Director #4, but Hue Beattie doesn't seem to have any kind of web presence and apparently did not respond to the voter guide questions. Having no idea what his positions are, I cannot vote for him.

John H. Blethen's campaign seems to be composed of opposing the closure of Larrabee Elementary and spouting slogans like "support the teachers" and "smaller class sizes." He also wants city government to have more control over the schools (I can't help but think that's a bad idea considering how city government handles everything else), and would consider raising local taxes if the state cuts the budget. Steven Smith is the incumbent and voted to close Larrabee Elementary. I don't know whether that was the right decision or not, but he does oppose raising local taxes if the state cuts the budget.

Conclusion: Vote for Steven Smith
This is a tough one, partly because there's so little information, but mostly because I don't usually pay attention to school board politics. A lot of the issues that separate the candidates may be important, but I don't know enough to judge. What I do know is that Smith opposes new taxes on me and has taken action as an incumbent to cut spending so that new taxes are not necessary. On the other hand, Blethen supports higher taxes for me and opposed Smith's action to cut spending. That's enough for me to cast my vote for Steven Smith.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

How Nations Succeed

Sudden computer problems really put a crimp in the blogging lifestyle, and while I'm back online, I'm not quite caught up with the rest of the world yet. In the meantime, here's a video via Kids Prefer Cheese: How Nations Succeed.

"Imagine a place where people are so poor that almost no one has electricity or indoor plumbing... People here live in abject poverty. Conditions are such that people cannot afford refrigerators or washing machines, not to mention cell phones or computers... People work six to seven days a week with little or no vacation time, just to feed and clothe their families. Cars are rare, and no one has air conditioning or television. Health care is primitive, with infant mortality high and death from disease routine. No one has access to antibiotics or even aspirin. Where is this undeveloped third world country?" (If you don't know the answer, watch the video before reading more.)

Friday, April 19, 2013

Long-term Unemployment and Perceived Marginal Value Product

Tyler Cowen and Bryan Caplan have been talking about the long-term unemployed and Zero Marginal Product workers. Cowen thinks the long-term unemployed have, or are perceived as having, zero marginal product, making them effectively unemployable, which is why employers won't even consider their applications. Caplan, on the other hand, says:
Put yourself in the shoes of an employer reviewing applications. What are you saying when you hastily toss an application in the trash? Consider the following possibilities:
  1. "I perceive this applicant to be a ZMP worker."
  2. "I perceive this applicant to have a MVP [EO: Marginal Value Product] below the wage we're offering."
  3. "After a cursory glance at his application, I perceive this applicant to have a sufficiently high probability of having a MVP below the wage we're offering that collecting more information is imprudent."
My claim: #1 is a rare special case of #2, which is in turn a rare special case of #3. #3 is the generally correct story.
I think Caplan is right, as far as he goes. However, he misses that #3 is itself a rare special case of a fourth possibility: "After a cursory glance at his application, I perceive this applicant to have a sufficiently high probability of not being the highest MVP applicant that collecting more information is imprudent."

Consider that most applications are sent for a particular job position, either an existing position that has been vacated by a previous employee or a newly-created specific position. Most employers will be looking for the one best employee to fill that specific position. When that is the case, the employer can safely discard all applications that are unlikely to be that one best employee, even those applications that have a MVP higher than the wage offered.

The job application process is in this sense much like a tournament--only one can win. Indeed, tournament theory explains why the long-term unemployed are perceived to have lower MVP in the first place. Someone who has been unemployed for a long time has apparently lost a long series of application "tournaments." They are presumed to have lost because of a lack of skills and effort rather than a long streak of bad luck.