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.

Summary
I-517: YES
I-522: NO
A-3: MAINTAIN
A-4: REPEAL
A-5: MAINTAIN
A-6: MAINTAIN
A-7: REPEAL

Yes on I-1185, the Two-Thirds Tax Requirement

The election is upon us! In recent days I have received both the poorly-named, 143-page voters' "pamphlet" with sample ballot as well as my actual ballot. I have until 8pm on Election Day to get it back to the government, so it's time to do my homework. First up is an easy one:

I-1185, the Two-Thirds Tax Requirement

The Issue: Current law in Washington state requires tax increases to be passed with a two-thirds majority in both houses of the state legislature, or by a simple majority in a popular vote. This law has been passed four times by popular initiative, most recently in 2007 and 2010. It was overturned by the legislature upon losing initiative protection in 2010. I-1185 renews the law to prevent it from being overturned in 2013. The pro-1185 website is here; the anti-1185 website is here.

My Position: I wholeheartedly support I-1185, and indeed any law that provides a check on the government's ability to take my money at will. The two-thirds requirement makes it more likely that taxes will only be raised when it truly is necessary.

Counterarguments: There seem to be four main arguments against I-1185:

1) Taxes should be higher, and I-1185 makes it more difficult to raise them as high as they should be, negatively impacting government services. (Rebuttal: No, taxes should not be higher. Important services can be funded by cutting non-important spending. If everything the government is doing is so important that none of it can be cut, then it should be easy to get a two-thirds vote in the legislature or a simple majority popular vote.)

2) I-1185 is unfair because it allows tax cuts & loopholes to be passed with a simple majority, but reversing those cuts & loopholes requires a two-thirds majority. (Rebuttal: This is true, but I have to admit, I'm just fine with a system that's biased towards letting me keep more of my own money.)

3) A two-thirds requirement is undemocratic. (Rebuttal: I-1185 allows tax increases via direct, simply majority popular votes. Nothing could be more democratic than that.)

4) A two-thirds requirement is unconstitutional. (Rebuttal: I would certainly prefer a constitutional amendment that does what I-1185 does, but constitutional amendments must be proposed by the legislature, and wouldn't you know it, they don't seem to like amendments that limit their own power. If an initiative as beneficial as I-1185 actually is unconstitutional, that would be a failure of the state constitution, not the initiative.)

I will be voting YES on I-1185.

If I Were the King of the World

Last Friday, Kevin Grier (Angus) at Kids Prefer Cheese listed the 5 things he would do as Supreme Ruler of the United States. Grover Cleveland at Pileus (ht Cafe Hayek) and later Brandon Christensen at The Republic of Liberty made their own lists. All three lists have some good ideas, and this sounds like fun, so I made my own.

I've tried to focus on more radical and interesting structural ideas, instead of more common policy ideas like tax reform or cutting sugar subsidies. That means I'm not so much convinced that these are actually good ideas. At present, I think on balance they probably might be mostly good (is that enough qualifiers?), but the academic's motto of "more study is needed" definitely applies to all five. So without further ado, here they are, in approximate descending order of probability (or ascending order of ridiculousness, if you prefer):

1. Submit Supreme Court Justices to Re-election
The entire Obamacare fiasco has underscored just how ridiculous the Supreme Court system is. By most accounts, whether or not we keep one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the last few decades will be decided by just one man-- the unelected, unaccountable Anthony Kennedy. The Constitutional idea of checks and balances was supposed to prevent exactly that.

My proposal is simple. Supreme Court Justices will continue to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, but they will also be subject, on a rotating basis, to re-election. Every two years, put one Justice up for re-election on a straight yes-or-no vote. If the result is yes, they stay in office, but if the result is no, they step down and a new one is appointed. Re-elections would rotate so that we always vote on the Justice that has gone longest without being re-elected. Without retirements, this means Justices would face re-election every 18 years; with retirements, it would usually happen faster. Hopefully, that's long enough that purely political motives will still be discouraged, but short enough to introduce at least some measure of accountability.

2. Create a Fourth Branch of Government - The Delegislature
As it stands, two of the three branches of government are entirely focused on creating new laws and new regulations. The judiciary is the only branch that regularly considers whether old laws should be eliminated, but they can only eliminate a law for being unconstitutional. The problem is that there are many bad laws and bad regulations that are perfectly constitutional, including many that once were good laws but no longer are.

The fourth branch of government, the Delegislature, would have as its sole power the ability to strike down bad laws and regulations. In a way, it would be like a Supreme Court that could focus on whether a law was actually good or bad, not just whether it was constitutional. It would also, of course, be elected in a similar manner to the Congress, and would be able to take on any existing law rather than be limited to court cases like the Supreme Court is. Politicians seeking re-election to the Delegislature would have to campaign on how many bad laws they've overturned. Hopefully, the underlying question of political discourse would eventually shift from "How should we control people?" to "How should we free people?"

3. Turn the Presidency into an Issue-Based Triumvirate
Just as concentrated power is bad at the Supreme Court, the same goes for the Presidency. At the same time, the nature of political discourse means that government's focus seems to grow without end. Rather than asking government to make us better off in general, we should seek a government that fulfills only those social functions that we need it to fulfill.

With an issues-based triumvirate, we would have three Presidents at once. We could stagger their elections; maybe they would serve six-year terms, with a new one being elected every two years. But once elected, each President would not have carte blanche to set policy in every area he can imagine. The three Presidential offices would each set policy on certain predefined issues. Very broadly, I'm thinking maybe they would be foreign policy, economic policy and social policy, although there are probably better ways to split up the issues. Obviously, there are some overlapping areas, so conflicts would be settled by a vote between the three. Hopefully, each election would focus more on the issues, and even if they didn't, the ongoing mission creep of the federal government would at least be slowed down. 

4. Eliminate Elections in Favor of Democracy Markets
We see this time and again-- a politician is elected on promises of governing from the center, and then once in office immediately pushes through the most extreme parts of his agenda. Closer to the next election, he shifts back to the center enough to get re-elected, and the cycle starts over again. This works so often because voter memory is significantly shorter than terms of office. What if there was a way for voters to express their discontent and keep politicians in line all the time?

Enter what I call democracy markets-- think of a stock market, where the "stock" you own reflects which politician you support. You would get one vote per office, and at any time you could transfer that vote to anyone who had registered as a candidate. The system doesn't have to be any more complex than automated online or phone banking, and there's no reason it can't be just as secure. There's no need to wait 2, 4 or 6 years to have your voice heard, because you could change your vote at any time. No need to wonder if your ballot was actually counted, because you could check your current vote as easily as you can now check your bank balance. And most importantly, politicians would get active, real-time feedback. Hopefully, they would be forced to do what the people actually wanted.

5. Decouple Governance from Geography
For as long as there have been governments, they have been linked to and identified by geography. For most of human history, this was just a necessity, for reasons of defense if nothing else. But governments in general, and defense in particular, have changed a lot over the last century or so. Many, if not most, of the things governments now do have no direct relation to actual geography.

If I want to buy insurance, or save for retirement, or invest in an exciting startup, I don't have to be in a particular geographic area to do so, government restrictions aside. Living in a particular geographic area should not mean I have to join a particular government service provider either. If I don't like Washington state's laws, I have the right to move away. But why should I have to uproot my life, give up my home, my job, my friends in the area because I don't like what some doofus in Olympia is doing? Obviously there are some government services necessarily tied to geography, so leave those be. But for everything else goverunment does, we should encourage some healthy competition. Ideally, we should be able to switch governments as easily as we switch grocery stores. Hopefully, this would encourage existing governments to become more responsive to what people actually want, and maybe it would even allow new, more efficient, more competitive governments to sprout up wherever there was demand for them.

Your Turn
What do you think? Would you support any of these ideas? Do you see any problems with them? What five things would you do if you were the Supreme Ruler?