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.
Summary
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
Showing posts with label issue positions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issue positions. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
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:
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:
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
I-517: Initiative Reform
First up is I-517, which reforms the initiative process in Washington state. I-517 includes four key reforms:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- "...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.
- "...on public sidewalks and walkways..." Again, this seems obvious if these places are to be considered truly public.
- "...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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The Gay Marriage Debate
Gay marriage is one of those issues where people tend to believe very strongly one way or the other, and also tend to believe that the other side is not just wrong, but deeply immoral. Rational discussion on gay marriage is thus very difficult, but nevertheless I will try to add my two cents.
The way I see it, the question of gay marriage boils down to the freedoms of association and speech. Individuals have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they please, provided the other party agrees; individuals also have the right to say what they like and express their views, or to say nothing. There are, of course, widely accepted limits to both of these freedoms, and some limits are more reasonable than others.
I believe the freedoms of association and speech together point to an ideal marriage policy: You should be free to marry whomever you want, and I should be free to acknowledge or ignore it however I want. This ideal marriage policy is what led me to approve R-74 in the last election.
The way I see it, the question of gay marriage boils down to the freedoms of association and speech. Individuals have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they please, provided the other party agrees; individuals also have the right to say what they like and express their views, or to say nothing. There are, of course, widely accepted limits to both of these freedoms, and some limits are more reasonable than others.
I believe the freedoms of association and speech together point to an ideal marriage policy: You should be free to marry whomever you want, and I should be free to acknowledge or ignore it however I want. This ideal marriage policy is what led me to approve R-74 in the last election.
The Conservatives
What Conservatives Won't Like: Conservatives won't like my ideal marriage policy because it means that there will be gay marriages. Gays and lesbians will live together, have sex, publicly express same-sex affection and do whatever else they want.
Why Conservatives Are Wrong: By my count, some 31 states currently outlaw gay marriage with no provision for civil unions. In every single one of these states, thousands or even millions of gays and lesbians under current law live together, have sex and publicly express same-sex affection. Many of them even have made lifelong commitments to each other that they would call marriages if the government did not prohibit it.
These people are already enjoying all the substance of marriage without the name. Even the most anti-gay U.S. conservatives do not advocate using government force to break up these relationships, as is done in nearly 80 countries worldwide. Rather, conservatives oppose gay marriage because they do not want to be required to support it. They fear that government recognition of gay marriage will come with government mandates for private citizens and private organizations to extend private recognition to gay marriages.
Why My Ideal Is Better: The conservative fear of government mandates is well-founded, and this is why my ideal policy preserves the individual's right to acknowledge or ignore someone else's marriage however they choose. To me, this seems to be implicit in the freedom of speech. Washington state's SB-6239 ensured this right for religious organizations, and I think it should be extended to everyone.
The Liberals
Why Conservatives Are Wrong: By my count, some 31 states currently outlaw gay marriage with no provision for civil unions. In every single one of these states, thousands or even millions of gays and lesbians under current law live together, have sex and publicly express same-sex affection. Many of them even have made lifelong commitments to each other that they would call marriages if the government did not prohibit it.
These people are already enjoying all the substance of marriage without the name. Even the most anti-gay U.S. conservatives do not advocate using government force to break up these relationships, as is done in nearly 80 countries worldwide. Rather, conservatives oppose gay marriage because they do not want to be required to support it. They fear that government recognition of gay marriage will come with government mandates for private citizens and private organizations to extend private recognition to gay marriages.
Why My Ideal Is Better: The conservative fear of government mandates is well-founded, and this is why my ideal policy preserves the individual's right to acknowledge or ignore someone else's marriage however they choose. To me, this seems to be implicit in the freedom of speech. Washington state's SB-6239 ensured this right for religious organizations, and I think it should be extended to everyone.
The Liberals
What Liberals Won't Like: Liberals won't like my ideal marriage policy because some people will choose not to recognize gay marriages. This includes companies providing benefits to employee spouses, churches performing marriage ceremonies, etc.
Why Liberals Are Wrong: Some employers will provide spousal benefits to heterosexual but not homosexual couples. No doubt in protest, some employers would provide spousal benefits to homosexual but not heterosexual couples. This violates a liberal's idea of "equality," but your right to do as you please does not extend to requiring me to approve of what you do. The freedom of association is meaningless if it does not include the right to not associate.
Furthermore, it is not the government's place to ensure equality in fact, even if such a thing were possible. Rather, the government's guarantee of equality is equality before the law, and that is exactly what my ideal policy provides. Everyone has equal rights to marry or not, and everyone has equal rights to say whatever they want about others' marriages.
Why My Ideal Is Better: Over time, the market may sort out societal preferences. If the vast majority of society ends up favoring gay marriage as liberals insist, the market will punish organizations that oppose gay marriage, just as it now punishes organizations like the KKK that overtly stand for racism. On the other hand, if liberals are less than correct about societal attitudes, we may end up with multiple equilibria, with different organizations catering to the different sides. My ideal marriage policy allows both cases to occur naturally, depending on how societal preferences change, rather than imposing societal change through government.
Why Liberals Are Wrong: Some employers will provide spousal benefits to heterosexual but not homosexual couples. No doubt in protest, some employers would provide spousal benefits to homosexual but not heterosexual couples. This violates a liberal's idea of "equality," but your right to do as you please does not extend to requiring me to approve of what you do. The freedom of association is meaningless if it does not include the right to not associate.
Furthermore, it is not the government's place to ensure equality in fact, even if such a thing were possible. Rather, the government's guarantee of equality is equality before the law, and that is exactly what my ideal policy provides. Everyone has equal rights to marry or not, and everyone has equal rights to say whatever they want about others' marriages.
Why My Ideal Is Better: Over time, the market may sort out societal preferences. If the vast majority of society ends up favoring gay marriage as liberals insist, the market will punish organizations that oppose gay marriage, just as it now punishes organizations like the KKK that overtly stand for racism. On the other hand, if liberals are less than correct about societal attitudes, we may end up with multiple equilibria, with different organizations catering to the different sides. My ideal marriage policy allows both cases to occur naturally, depending on how societal preferences change, rather than imposing societal change through government.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
No on Two Local Issues
With exactly a week before my ballot has to be back in the
government's hands, I'm filling it out a bit faster now. So far I've voted yes
on I-1185, I-1240 and SJR-8221, approved R-74 and voted no on I-502, SJR-8223, A-1 and A-2. Below are two local issues, one for the Port of Bellingham and one for the City of Bellingham.
NO on Port of Bellingham, Proposition 1, Number of Port Commissioners
The Issue: There are currently three Port of Bellingham Commissioners; this proposition would raise that number to five.
My Position: While the official argument for Prop-1 speaks of increased representation, this smells to me like an attempt to pack the commission. I can find no clear evidence for or against my hypothesis, but it still smells like a fish to me. Plus, Washington's open meetings law applies to one-on-one meetings of a three-member commission; it does not apply to one-on-one meetings of a five-member commission. That smells even fishier. I will be voting NO on the Port's Prop-1.
NO on City of Bellingham, Proposition 1, Low-Income Housing Levy
The Issue: City Council wants to raise property taxes by $36 per $100,000 of assessed value to fund a program for low-income housing.
My Position: I will be voting no on this tax increase, for three reasons:
1) An increase in the property tax will increase rent, and I don't want my rent to go up.
2) Trying to make housing more affordable by raising taxes on housing is just plain stupid. As the official "Statement Against" says, "You don't make housing more affordable by making it more expensive."
3) The state and federal governments already provide low-income housing subsidies, as well as other programs for low-income people. Do we really need yet another level of government doing the same thing as the others?
NO on Port of Bellingham, Proposition 1, Number of Port Commissioners
The Issue: There are currently three Port of Bellingham Commissioners; this proposition would raise that number to five.
My Position: While the official argument for Prop-1 speaks of increased representation, this smells to me like an attempt to pack the commission. I can find no clear evidence for or against my hypothesis, but it still smells like a fish to me. Plus, Washington's open meetings law applies to one-on-one meetings of a three-member commission; it does not apply to one-on-one meetings of a five-member commission. That smells even fishier. I will be voting NO on the Port's Prop-1.
NO on City of Bellingham, Proposition 1, Low-Income Housing Levy
The Issue: City Council wants to raise property taxes by $36 per $100,000 of assessed value to fund a program for low-income housing.
My Position: I will be voting no on this tax increase, for three reasons:
1) An increase in the property tax will increase rent, and I don't want my rent to go up.
2) Trying to make housing more affordable by raising taxes on housing is just plain stupid. As the official "Statement Against" says, "You don't make housing more affordable by making it more expensive."
3) The state and federal governments already provide low-income housing subsidies, as well as other programs for low-income people. Do we really need yet another level of government doing the same thing as the others?
No on Three Minor Statewide Issues
With exactly a week before my ballot has to be back in the
government's hands, I'm filling it out a bit faster now. So far I've voted yes
on I-1185, I-1240 and SJR-8221, approved R-74 and voted no on I-502. Below are three minor statewide issues: SJR-8223 on public fund investments, plus two advisory votes.
NO on SJR-8223, Public Fund Investments
The Issue: In general, Washington state public funds are prohibited from investing in private stocks and bonds. Over time, a laundry list of exceptions has been added to the constitution, primarily allowing public trust funds and public pension funds to invest in private stocks and bonds. SJR-8223 would add the operating budgets of the University of Washington and Washington State University to the list of exceptions.
My Position: Using public funds to invest in private companies looks to me like a backdoor way to pick winners and losers with voters none-the-wiser. I think the general prohibition is a great idea, and that we should probably reduce the list of restrictions rather than increase it.
REPEAL A-1, B&O Tax Increase
The Issue: The Washington legislature raised B&O taxes on some financial institutions and lowered taxes for others, including manufacturers of agriculture products and newspapers, for a net 10-year tax increase of $24 million.
My Position: Tax increases in general are bad. This one in particular is worse. It raises taxes on a disfavored industry (finance) by $170 million, and mostly offsets it with cuts to favored industries (agriculture, newspapers). While this is only an advisory vote, I will vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases and against favors to certain industries over others.
REPEAL A-2, Petroleum Tax
The Issue: A tax on certain commercial petroleum products was set to expire, and the Washington legislature extended the expiration date for a 10-year tax increase of $24 million.
My Position: Once again, tax increases are bad. While A-2 is not as bad as A-1, I will still vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases.
NO on SJR-8223, Public Fund Investments
The Issue: In general, Washington state public funds are prohibited from investing in private stocks and bonds. Over time, a laundry list of exceptions has been added to the constitution, primarily allowing public trust funds and public pension funds to invest in private stocks and bonds. SJR-8223 would add the operating budgets of the University of Washington and Washington State University to the list of exceptions.
My Position: Using public funds to invest in private companies looks to me like a backdoor way to pick winners and losers with voters none-the-wiser. I think the general prohibition is a great idea, and that we should probably reduce the list of restrictions rather than increase it.
REPEAL A-1, B&O Tax Increase
The Issue: The Washington legislature raised B&O taxes on some financial institutions and lowered taxes for others, including manufacturers of agriculture products and newspapers, for a net 10-year tax increase of $24 million.
My Position: Tax increases in general are bad. This one in particular is worse. It raises taxes on a disfavored industry (finance) by $170 million, and mostly offsets it with cuts to favored industries (agriculture, newspapers). While this is only an advisory vote, I will vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases and against favors to certain industries over others.
REPEAL A-2, Petroleum Tax
The Issue: A tax on certain commercial petroleum products was set to expire, and the Washington legislature extended the expiration date for a 10-year tax increase of $24 million.
My Position: Once again, tax increases are bad. While A-2 is not as bad as A-1, I will still vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases.
Yes on SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit
With about a week before my ballot has to be back in the
government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. So far I've voted yes
on I-1185 and I-1240, approved R-74 and voted no on I-502.
SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit
The Issue: Engrossed Senate Joint Resolution 8221 is a constitutional amendment implementing three changes to the Washington state limit on debt payments:
1) The amendment would schedule three reductions to the state debt limit. Currently at 9.0% of general state revenues, the limit would fall to 8.5% in 2014, 8.25% in 2016 and 8.0% in 2034 (and no, that's not a typo, that's a reduction scheduled for twenty-two years after the amendment).
2) The current limit is based on the average of general state revenues over the previous three years. The amendment would change that to six years.
3) Whereas "general state revenues" currently only includes revenue that is not dedicated to a specific use, the amendment would redefine "general state revenues" to include the state property tax, which is dedicated to the specific use of funding public schools.
My Position: I'm no fan of government debt, and Washington state debt is already over 20% of GSP. I wholeheartedly support lowering the limit on state debt.
The Changes:
1) While scheduling the final drop to 8.0% for 2034 is nothing but cynical, a drop to 8.5% at the next biennial budget and 8.25% at the biennial budget after that is a clear win for smaller government.
2) Extending the the basis for the limit from the average of three years to six years stabilizes the limit against recessions. However, since revenue typically grows year-to-year, the six-year average will usually be smaller than the three-year average. The debt limit will be a smaller percentage of a smaller number-- again, a win for smaller government.
3) Expanding the definition of "general state revenues" to include property taxes further stabilizes the limit, as property taxes are more stable than other forms of revenue. However, this also raises the limit. The Commission on State Debt (PDF) found that property taxes are about 10% of general state revenue, but typically grow slower (2%) than the rest of general state revenue (4.5%). Even so, if these numbers hold true, the new limit would be about 2.5% lower than the old in 2014, and would drop to almost 6% lower than the old in 2016. Once again, a win for small government.
I will be voting YES on SJR-8221.
SJR-8221, Altering the Debt Limit
The Issue: Engrossed Senate Joint Resolution 8221 is a constitutional amendment implementing three changes to the Washington state limit on debt payments:
1) The amendment would schedule three reductions to the state debt limit. Currently at 9.0% of general state revenues, the limit would fall to 8.5% in 2014, 8.25% in 2016 and 8.0% in 2034 (and no, that's not a typo, that's a reduction scheduled for twenty-two years after the amendment).
2) The current limit is based on the average of general state revenues over the previous three years. The amendment would change that to six years.
3) Whereas "general state revenues" currently only includes revenue that is not dedicated to a specific use, the amendment would redefine "general state revenues" to include the state property tax, which is dedicated to the specific use of funding public schools.
My Position: I'm no fan of government debt, and Washington state debt is already over 20% of GSP. I wholeheartedly support lowering the limit on state debt.
The Changes:
1) While scheduling the final drop to 8.0% for 2034 is nothing but cynical, a drop to 8.5% at the next biennial budget and 8.25% at the biennial budget after that is a clear win for smaller government.
2) Extending the the basis for the limit from the average of three years to six years stabilizes the limit against recessions. However, since revenue typically grows year-to-year, the six-year average will usually be smaller than the three-year average. The debt limit will be a smaller percentage of a smaller number-- again, a win for smaller government.
3) Expanding the definition of "general state revenues" to include property taxes further stabilizes the limit, as property taxes are more stable than other forms of revenue. However, this also raises the limit. The Commission on State Debt (PDF) found that property taxes are about 10% of general state revenue, but typically grow slower (2%) than the rest of general state revenue (4.5%). Even so, if these numbers hold true, the new limit would be about 2.5% lower than the old in 2014, and would drop to almost 6% lower than the old in 2016. Once again, a win for small government.
I will be voting YES on SJR-8221.
No on I-502, Marijuana
With about a week before my ballot has to be back in the
government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. So far I've voted yes
on both I-1185 and I-1240, and approved R-74.
I-502, Marijuana
The Issue: I-502 would make it legal under state law (but not federal law) to possess and sell marijuana under a system of strict regulations. Marijuana producers could not have any financial interest in marijuana retailers and vice versa. Licenses to produce, process or retail marijuana would cost $250 to apply plus $1000 per year per location, with samples regularly submitted to state labs for testing.
Furthermore, marijuana would be taxed at 25% at each level of production and distribution, prior to state and local B&O and sales taxes. At the legally-mandated minimum of two steps of production (producer -> retailer), state taxes on marijuana would be approximately 68%. Total tax, including the state average for local sales taxes, would be over 70%.
I-502 also establishes many alcohol-equivalent rules for marijuana use. For example, marijuana possession would remain illegal for those under 21, driving under the influence of marijuana would be illegal for everyone, open containers in public would be prohibited, etc. The pro-502 website is here. The official anti-502 website, which is pro-legalization, is here.
My Position: I don't fully buy the arguments supporting the drug war, but I also don't buy a lot of the arguments opposing it. My libertarian leanings run up against path dependency, and I remain agnostic on the drug war as a whole.
I am opposed to I-502 because it won't bring any of the benefits of legalization, yet will create a massive new state bureaucracy under the guise of legalization.
My Reasons:
1) I-502 will directly contradict federal law, under which marijuana production, distribution and possession will all remain illegal. If passed, the initiative is likely to be struck down entirely or in part in federal court. (The counterargument is that I-502 allows but does not require violations of federal law, so that it is not pre-empted and will not be struck down. However, I-502 does seem to require violations of federal law by state marijuana regulators, particularly the prohibitions on possession and distribution of marijuana. The feds may also consider it money laundering to accept funds raised from the marijuana tax.)
2) Even if I-502 is not struck down, the threat of federal prosecution for marijuana crimes will prevent the benefits of legalization from being realized. Licensed marijuana producers, processors and retailers will have their names, addresses and precise details of their businesses recorded in a state database. Any guesses on how long it takes that database to get into federal hands? Anyone who opens a marijuana business is betting big on that never happening. New producers will be discouraged from entering the market; existing producers will be discouraged from becoming licensed.
3) Furthermore, the regulatory system set up by I-502 will place legal marijuana sellers at a substantial disadvantage to illegal sellers. Legal marijuana sales will have a cumulative tax of at least 68%, and possibly more than 100% if the production and distribution chain contains more than two steps. Then there's the significant regulatory burden placed on legal sellers-- the fees they must pay to the government, or to third parties because of government requirements; the restrictions on where they can sell, where and how they can advertise, what other businesses they can be involved in; and all of it with the threat of federal prosecution still hanging over their heads. Again, new producers will be discouraged from entering the market, and existing producers will be discouraged from becoming licensed.
4) The existing (illegal) marijuana market is an international one, yet legal marijuana sellers under I-502 will be limited to Washington state, both in who they buy from and who they sell to. With the other disadvantages placed on legal sellers, they will never be able to compete with existing illegal sellers, and those illegal sellers have scant incentive to become legal.
Whatever benefits full legalization might provide, we won't see any of them under I-502. Meanwhile, the state will spend tens of millions of dollars setting up a bureaucracy to regulate a market that will likely fail to materialize.
I will be voting NO on I-502.
I-502, Marijuana
The Issue: I-502 would make it legal under state law (but not federal law) to possess and sell marijuana under a system of strict regulations. Marijuana producers could not have any financial interest in marijuana retailers and vice versa. Licenses to produce, process or retail marijuana would cost $250 to apply plus $1000 per year per location, with samples regularly submitted to state labs for testing.
Furthermore, marijuana would be taxed at 25% at each level of production and distribution, prior to state and local B&O and sales taxes. At the legally-mandated minimum of two steps of production (producer -> retailer), state taxes on marijuana would be approximately 68%. Total tax, including the state average for local sales taxes, would be over 70%.
I-502 also establishes many alcohol-equivalent rules for marijuana use. For example, marijuana possession would remain illegal for those under 21, driving under the influence of marijuana would be illegal for everyone, open containers in public would be prohibited, etc. The pro-502 website is here. The official anti-502 website, which is pro-legalization, is here.
My Position: I don't fully buy the arguments supporting the drug war, but I also don't buy a lot of the arguments opposing it. My libertarian leanings run up against path dependency, and I remain agnostic on the drug war as a whole.
I am opposed to I-502 because it won't bring any of the benefits of legalization, yet will create a massive new state bureaucracy under the guise of legalization.
My Reasons:
1) I-502 will directly contradict federal law, under which marijuana production, distribution and possession will all remain illegal. If passed, the initiative is likely to be struck down entirely or in part in federal court. (The counterargument is that I-502 allows but does not require violations of federal law, so that it is not pre-empted and will not be struck down. However, I-502 does seem to require violations of federal law by state marijuana regulators, particularly the prohibitions on possession and distribution of marijuana. The feds may also consider it money laundering to accept funds raised from the marijuana tax.)
2) Even if I-502 is not struck down, the threat of federal prosecution for marijuana crimes will prevent the benefits of legalization from being realized. Licensed marijuana producers, processors and retailers will have their names, addresses and precise details of their businesses recorded in a state database. Any guesses on how long it takes that database to get into federal hands? Anyone who opens a marijuana business is betting big on that never happening. New producers will be discouraged from entering the market; existing producers will be discouraged from becoming licensed.
3) Furthermore, the regulatory system set up by I-502 will place legal marijuana sellers at a substantial disadvantage to illegal sellers. Legal marijuana sales will have a cumulative tax of at least 68%, and possibly more than 100% if the production and distribution chain contains more than two steps. Then there's the significant regulatory burden placed on legal sellers-- the fees they must pay to the government, or to third parties because of government requirements; the restrictions on where they can sell, where and how they can advertise, what other businesses they can be involved in; and all of it with the threat of federal prosecution still hanging over their heads. Again, new producers will be discouraged from entering the market, and existing producers will be discouraged from becoming licensed.
4) The existing (illegal) marijuana market is an international one, yet legal marijuana sellers under I-502 will be limited to Washington state, both in who they buy from and who they sell to. With the other disadvantages placed on legal sellers, they will never be able to compete with existing illegal sellers, and those illegal sellers have scant incentive to become legal.
Whatever benefits full legalization might provide, we won't see any of them under I-502. Meanwhile, the state will spend tens of millions of dollars setting up a bureaucracy to regulate a market that will likely fail to materialize.
I will be voting NO on I-502.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Approve R-74, Same Sex Marriage
With less than two weeks before my ballot has to be back in the government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. So far I've voted yes on both I-1185 and I-1240.
R-74, Same Sex Marriage
The Issue: R-74 is a referendum on Senate Bill 6239, which extended the legal term "marriage" to include relationships previously included only under the term "domestic partnership" and restricted the term "domestic partnership" so that it would not overlap the term "marriage." SB-6239 also granted special immunities to clergy and religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize any particular marriage.
SB-6239 was signed into law by Governor Gregoire in February of this year. Opponents gathered enough petition signatures to require a referendum; that referendum is R-74. Approval means the law will be enacted; rejection means it will not be enacted. The pro-approval website is here; the pro-rejection website is here.
My Position: Whether or not to marry and who we marry if we do is one of the most deeply personal choices we can make, and the government has no place in it. Unfortunately, that option isn't on the table.
Current law in Washington has already established same-sex "domestic partnerships" which are legally equivalent to marriage in all but name. R-74 is not about relationships or love or God's will or anything else its supporters and detractors claim. Everything that could happen under R-74 would also happen without it. R-74 is a very narrow question that is entirely linguistic: Should the legal term "marriage" also refer to what are now same-sex domestic partnerships?
Twice now, I've deliberately referred to "marriage" as a legal term, because in this instance, that is all that it is. State law cannot change the popular meaning of a word, only its use in legal terminology. I don't care one way or the other about legal terminology. A rose by any other name...
However, R-74 also grants special protections to religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize same-sex marriages. This provision gets closer to my ideal marriage policy than any other proposal I've ever seen-- You should be free to marry whoever you want, and I should be free to acknowledge or ignore it however I want. I would prefer if these protections were granted to everyone, not just religious organizations. Even so, R-74 enshrines the right to disagree, and this, I think, is a very important first step towards my ideal.
I will be voting APPROVE on R-74.
R-74, Same Sex Marriage
The Issue: R-74 is a referendum on Senate Bill 6239, which extended the legal term "marriage" to include relationships previously included only under the term "domestic partnership" and restricted the term "domestic partnership" so that it would not overlap the term "marriage." SB-6239 also granted special immunities to clergy and religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize any particular marriage.
SB-6239 was signed into law by Governor Gregoire in February of this year. Opponents gathered enough petition signatures to require a referendum; that referendum is R-74. Approval means the law will be enacted; rejection means it will not be enacted. The pro-approval website is here; the pro-rejection website is here.
My Position: Whether or not to marry and who we marry if we do is one of the most deeply personal choices we can make, and the government has no place in it. Unfortunately, that option isn't on the table.
Current law in Washington has already established same-sex "domestic partnerships" which are legally equivalent to marriage in all but name. R-74 is not about relationships or love or God's will or anything else its supporters and detractors claim. Everything that could happen under R-74 would also happen without it. R-74 is a very narrow question that is entirely linguistic: Should the legal term "marriage" also refer to what are now same-sex domestic partnerships?
Twice now, I've deliberately referred to "marriage" as a legal term, because in this instance, that is all that it is. State law cannot change the popular meaning of a word, only its use in legal terminology. I don't care one way or the other about legal terminology. A rose by any other name...
However, R-74 also grants special protections to religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize same-sex marriages. This provision gets closer to my ideal marriage policy than any other proposal I've ever seen-- You should be free to marry whoever you want, and I should be free to acknowledge or ignore it however I want. I would prefer if these protections were granted to everyone, not just religious organizations. Even so, R-74 enshrines the right to disagree, and this, I think, is a very important first step towards my ideal.
I will be voting APPROVE on R-74.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Yes on I-1240, Charter Schools
With less than two weeks before my ballot has to be back in the government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. Voting Yes on I-1185 was easy; I-1240 is more difficult.
I-1240, Charter Schools
The Issue: I-1240 would create a "new" type of public school, one managed by a non-religious, non-profit organization, yet funded by the state government. Forty-one other states have adopted charter schools; I-1240 would allow a total of 40 charter schools in Washington. The pro-1240 website is here; the anti-1240 website is here.
My Position: In general, I support increasing school choice. In this particular case, I'm a bit leery for a few reasons. However, any reform that provides more choice is a step in the right direction, so I support I-1240.
My Reservations: I have three main concerns about I-1240:
1) Washington's charter schools will be explicity non-religious. Now under current Supreme Court doctrine, we may not have any other choice, but it still concerns me. If I-1240 passes, Washington will be establishing a program to give tax money to private organizations, and explicitly excluding certain organizations from consideration for that money based soley on religion. (On the other hand, it's not like regular public schools are any better in that regard, and at least I-1240 will expand parental choice.)
2) Washington's charter schools can only be run by non-profits. By removing the profit motive, I-1240 removes one of the best advantages charter schools have over regular public schools. (On the other hand, Washington voters have already rejected charter schools three times. Non-profit charters may be the only kind of charter school we can hope to see here in the near future.)
3) I would prefer a full voucher system that allowed parents the full range of choices for their children's education. (On the other hand, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, at least not in Washington state.)
Counterarguments: The No-on-1240 side makes four main counterarguments against I-1240, quoted below from the official Argument Against published in the voters' pamphlet:
1) "Charter schools will drain millions of dollars from existing public schools." (Rebuttal: In Washington, public school funding is based on enrollment. If a student enrolls in a different public school, the money follows the student. Charter schools will take money from existing schools only to the extent that parents choose charter schools over existing schools.)
2) "Charter schools will serve only a tiny fraction of our student population." (Rebuttal: Since school funding follows the student, this means that only a tiny fraction of public school money will be taken from existing schools. So what's the problem? I have a hard time taking this counterargument seriously. If the problem is that only a few would benefit, what kind of solution is it to forbid those few from benefiting?)
3) "Charter schools are an unproven, risky gamble." (Rebuttal: Forty-one states plus DC have already adopted charter schools, some more than twenty years ago. You might say compact discs are unproven, risky gambles too. But seriously, regular public schools are a gamble too-- some fail spectacularly. The difference is that you currently can't leave a public school without shelling out thousands to a private school or homeschooling. The parents' option to exit will not only keep charter schools on their toes, but improve performance in non-charter schools as well.)
4) "Charter schools undermine local control." (Rebuttal: I should hope so! If I were a parent, I wouldn't want the local board to have such total control over where I educated my children. I-1240 only undermines "local control" insofar as it restores choice to parents.)
I will be voting YES on I-1240.
I-1240, Charter Schools
The Issue: I-1240 would create a "new" type of public school, one managed by a non-religious, non-profit organization, yet funded by the state government. Forty-one other states have adopted charter schools; I-1240 would allow a total of 40 charter schools in Washington. The pro-1240 website is here; the anti-1240 website is here.
My Position: In general, I support increasing school choice. In this particular case, I'm a bit leery for a few reasons. However, any reform that provides more choice is a step in the right direction, so I support I-1240.
My Reservations: I have three main concerns about I-1240:
1) Washington's charter schools will be explicity non-religious. Now under current Supreme Court doctrine, we may not have any other choice, but it still concerns me. If I-1240 passes, Washington will be establishing a program to give tax money to private organizations, and explicitly excluding certain organizations from consideration for that money based soley on religion. (On the other hand, it's not like regular public schools are any better in that regard, and at least I-1240 will expand parental choice.)
2) Washington's charter schools can only be run by non-profits. By removing the profit motive, I-1240 removes one of the best advantages charter schools have over regular public schools. (On the other hand, Washington voters have already rejected charter schools three times. Non-profit charters may be the only kind of charter school we can hope to see here in the near future.)
3) I would prefer a full voucher system that allowed parents the full range of choices for their children's education. (On the other hand, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, at least not in Washington state.)
Counterarguments: The No-on-1240 side makes four main counterarguments against I-1240, quoted below from the official Argument Against published in the voters' pamphlet:
1) "Charter schools will drain millions of dollars from existing public schools." (Rebuttal: In Washington, public school funding is based on enrollment. If a student enrolls in a different public school, the money follows the student. Charter schools will take money from existing schools only to the extent that parents choose charter schools over existing schools.)
2) "Charter schools will serve only a tiny fraction of our student population." (Rebuttal: Since school funding follows the student, this means that only a tiny fraction of public school money will be taken from existing schools. So what's the problem? I have a hard time taking this counterargument seriously. If the problem is that only a few would benefit, what kind of solution is it to forbid those few from benefiting?)
3) "Charter schools are an unproven, risky gamble." (Rebuttal: Forty-one states plus DC have already adopted charter schools, some more than twenty years ago. You might say compact discs are unproven, risky gambles too. But seriously, regular public schools are a gamble too-- some fail spectacularly. The difference is that you currently can't leave a public school without shelling out thousands to a private school or homeschooling. The parents' option to exit will not only keep charter schools on their toes, but improve performance in non-charter schools as well.)
4) "Charter schools undermine local control." (Rebuttal: I should hope so! If I were a parent, I wouldn't want the local board to have such total control over where I educated my children. I-1240 only undermines "local control" insofar as it restores choice to parents.)
I will be voting YES on I-1240.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Issue of the Day - Updated
(Update at the end.)
With the Obamacare ruling expected in a few hours, here's my in-before-the-deadline thoughts on the individual mandate. Not being a constitutional lawyer myself, as far as I can tell there are three clauses in the US Constitution that might make the individual mandate constitutional. The first and most easily dismissed is the Commerce Clause; second is the Necessary and Proper Clause; third, with the most relevance, is the Tax and Spending Clause.
The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. If that is taken to mean actual interstate commerce, the Commerce Clause would be completely irrelevant here. Almost every state specifically prohibits its residents from purchasing out-of-state health insurance. There is no interstate health insurance market, and that is a direct, deliberate result of government policy. How then, can Congress regulate interstate commerce that doesn't even exist? Interstate commerce doesn't mean that lots of states have their own intrastate commerce. Interstate commerce has to be between states, which for most states is specifically forbidden when it comes to health insurance. At best, the Commerce Clause might allow a health insurance mandate for the three states (RI, WY, GA) that allow out-of-state insurance. Now, I haven't seen any legal expert even mention what I'm talking about, so maybe there's a really awesome legal argument for why I'm wrong. But until I find out what that is, this just seems like common sense to me.
The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to do things that aren't authorized elsewhere, but that are necessary and proper to do things that are authorized elsewhere. The problem is, you won't find "health insurance" in Congress' enumerated powers. Lots of people say it's included in the Commerce Clause (see above), and I suppose it might be counted under "general welfare." But that seems like a stretch to me. Even if the public health is included in "general welfare," when you get to the point of mandating individual citizens to buy specific products from private parties, you've gone way beyond either public health or general welfare.
Even if health insurance is included under "general welfare," it's not clear to me that the individual mandate is either necessary or proper. I understand that the mandate is necessary to prevent the insurance industry from collapsing under the weight of the rest of Obamacare, but that hardly seems like a proper use of the word necessary. That's like me holding Hank's head under water, and then saying it's necessary for you to go buy scuba gear for Hank so he doesn't drown. Giving Congress extra powers to undo damage caused by exercising their other powers just seems like a bad idea to me-- the phrase perverse incentives comes to mind.
The Tax and Spending Clause allows Congress to basically tax whatever they want, as long as it applies equally throughout the country. If the individual mandate is a tax, I think it would pretty clearly be constitutional via the Tax and Spending Clause. The federal government has all kinds of taxes and credits and deductions for very specific, very personal individual behaviors, like buying a house or having a kid or giving to a list of federally-approved charities. I can't see how these would be allowed but health insurance wouldn't be.
In legal circles, the big debate is whether the mandate actually is a tax (which is allowed) or a penalty (which isn't allowed). What's the real difference? There isn't one. Right now, the law explicitly calls the mandate a "penalty," but every instance of "penalty" could be replaced with "tax" and the meaning would be no different. In fact, Congress did exactly that in the other direction-- early drafts called the mandate a tax, but the final law calls the same mandate a penalty. They do exactly the same thing. So why is one constitutional and the other not? As far as I can tell, because constitutional law is stupid. That link makes it a bit difficult to end on that note, but I really don't have a better explanation.
Conclusion
I have no idea how the Supreme Court will actually rule in a few hours, nor is this an attempt to guess, or to sort out the legal arguments. This is just my attempt at a common sense approach to the Constitution, which is admittedly something even the Founders never intended. I may be way off-base, but based on my interpretation, the individual mandate cannot be justified under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It probably can be justified under the Tax and Spending Clause, and even if it can't, it could be with a nearly-identical law that does the same thing but explicitly calls it a tax instead of a penalty.
Update
The full text of the ruling (193 pages) is here in PDF form. It looks like the Court agreed with me that the Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses do not allow an individual mandate, although for different reasons than mine. I was apparently wrong that the mandate would be unconstitutional if you called it a penalty but constitutional if you called it a tax-- constitutional law is more internally consistent (ie less stupid) than I thought. At the same time, Roberts and the four liberal justices ruled that the mandate is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act (ruling otherwise would have prevented the Court from even considering the case), while it is a tax for purposes of the Tax & Spending Clause. In other words, constitutional law is both more and less internally consistent than I thought. (Decide for yourself how that impacts my own internal consistency.)
I still think the individual mandate is a horrible policy, even if it is constitutional. I sincerely hope we can repeal it in 2013. I'm encouraged that individual mandates are not constitutional under the Commerce or Necessary & Proper Clauses; to be passed, they must now be passed as taxes, which will be more politically difficult. The libertarian in me also hopes that this prompts the nation into taking a good, hard look at our tax code and the wide-ranging tax powers our government has. Maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment restricting Congress' tax power.
With the Obamacare ruling expected in a few hours, here's my in-before-the-deadline thoughts on the individual mandate. Not being a constitutional lawyer myself, as far as I can tell there are three clauses in the US Constitution that might make the individual mandate constitutional. The first and most easily dismissed is the Commerce Clause; second is the Necessary and Proper Clause; third, with the most relevance, is the Tax and Spending Clause.
The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. If that is taken to mean actual interstate commerce, the Commerce Clause would be completely irrelevant here. Almost every state specifically prohibits its residents from purchasing out-of-state health insurance. There is no interstate health insurance market, and that is a direct, deliberate result of government policy. How then, can Congress regulate interstate commerce that doesn't even exist? Interstate commerce doesn't mean that lots of states have their own intrastate commerce. Interstate commerce has to be between states, which for most states is specifically forbidden when it comes to health insurance. At best, the Commerce Clause might allow a health insurance mandate for the three states (RI, WY, GA) that allow out-of-state insurance. Now, I haven't seen any legal expert even mention what I'm talking about, so maybe there's a really awesome legal argument for why I'm wrong. But until I find out what that is, this just seems like common sense to me.
The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to do things that aren't authorized elsewhere, but that are necessary and proper to do things that are authorized elsewhere. The problem is, you won't find "health insurance" in Congress' enumerated powers. Lots of people say it's included in the Commerce Clause (see above), and I suppose it might be counted under "general welfare." But that seems like a stretch to me. Even if the public health is included in "general welfare," when you get to the point of mandating individual citizens to buy specific products from private parties, you've gone way beyond either public health or general welfare.
Even if health insurance is included under "general welfare," it's not clear to me that the individual mandate is either necessary or proper. I understand that the mandate is necessary to prevent the insurance industry from collapsing under the weight of the rest of Obamacare, but that hardly seems like a proper use of the word necessary. That's like me holding Hank's head under water, and then saying it's necessary for you to go buy scuba gear for Hank so he doesn't drown. Giving Congress extra powers to undo damage caused by exercising their other powers just seems like a bad idea to me-- the phrase perverse incentives comes to mind.
The Tax and Spending Clause allows Congress to basically tax whatever they want, as long as it applies equally throughout the country. If the individual mandate is a tax, I think it would pretty clearly be constitutional via the Tax and Spending Clause. The federal government has all kinds of taxes and credits and deductions for very specific, very personal individual behaviors, like buying a house or having a kid or giving to a list of federally-approved charities. I can't see how these would be allowed but health insurance wouldn't be.
In legal circles, the big debate is whether the mandate actually is a tax (which is allowed) or a penalty (which isn't allowed). What's the real difference? There isn't one. Right now, the law explicitly calls the mandate a "penalty," but every instance of "penalty" could be replaced with "tax" and the meaning would be no different. In fact, Congress did exactly that in the other direction-- early drafts called the mandate a tax, but the final law calls the same mandate a penalty. They do exactly the same thing. So why is one constitutional and the other not? As far as I can tell, because constitutional law is stupid. That link makes it a bit difficult to end on that note, but I really don't have a better explanation.
Conclusion
I have no idea how the Supreme Court will actually rule in a few hours, nor is this an attempt to guess, or to sort out the legal arguments. This is just my attempt at a common sense approach to the Constitution, which is admittedly something even the Founders never intended. I may be way off-base, but based on my interpretation, the individual mandate cannot be justified under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It probably can be justified under the Tax and Spending Clause, and even if it can't, it could be with a nearly-identical law that does the same thing but explicitly calls it a tax instead of a penalty.
Update
The full text of the ruling (193 pages) is here in PDF form. It looks like the Court agreed with me that the Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses do not allow an individual mandate, although for different reasons than mine. I was apparently wrong that the mandate would be unconstitutional if you called it a penalty but constitutional if you called it a tax-- constitutional law is more internally consistent (ie less stupid) than I thought. At the same time, Roberts and the four liberal justices ruled that the mandate is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act (ruling otherwise would have prevented the Court from even considering the case), while it is a tax for purposes of the Tax & Spending Clause. In other words, constitutional law is both more and less internally consistent than I thought. (Decide for yourself how that impacts my own internal consistency.)
I still think the individual mandate is a horrible policy, even if it is constitutional. I sincerely hope we can repeal it in 2013. I'm encouraged that individual mandates are not constitutional under the Commerce or Necessary & Proper Clauses; to be passed, they must now be passed as taxes, which will be more politically difficult. The libertarian in me also hopes that this prompts the nation into taking a good, hard look at our tax code and the wide-ranging tax powers our government has. Maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment restricting Congress' tax power.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Your Papers, Please
Three Canadian women, in two separate lawsuits, are accusing US border guards of "sexual groping" during searches, specific details at the link. One of them, from Windsor, was on her way to Detroit for "a routine shopping trip" when it happened (the other two have chosen not to talk to the media about it). Their lawyer says, "the type of search they received was not a normal pat down or a normal personal search."
Now, as far as I can tell, the lawsuits have just been filed, so innocent until proven guilty and all that still applies. But it just strikes me as completely ridiculous that the system is set up to even make crimes like this possible. How ridiculous? Let me count the ways...
1) Why do we, as a society, believe it's remotely appropriate to stop and search women on a routine shopping trip? Bear in mind, when you cross the border, they don't just let everyone through and only stop the suspicious ones. Everyone is stopped and has to give the guard an account of why they want to cross, where they're going, when they're going back and any other questions the guard feels like asking. The act of trying to cross a border makes you suspicious enough by itself to warrant interrogation. If this was done in the middle of New York, or Chicago, or St. Louis, Americans would rightly consider it repugnant and even tyrannical. Yet when it's done at the border, we cheer.
2) What in the hell is "a normal pat down or a normal personal search"? Since when in this supposedly freedom-loving country are pat downs and personal searches normal? Even if I'm completely off-base with point #1 and interrogation by armed enforcement officers for the crime of wanting to go shopping is entirely appropriate, how does that lead to pat downs and personal searches being normal? Whatever happened to being secure in our persons, papers and effects? I'm sorry, but I simply don't think it's reasonable to be subject to armed searches solely for going about routine business in a free society (and I mean "reasonable" in both the modern and Fourth Amendment senses). The only suspicious thing about these women was that they happened to be in Canada before wanting to visit America.
3) Even if I'm wrong on both #1 and #2, and personal pat downs on your way to the store are reasonable, shouldn't we have protections against obvious abuses like what (allegedly) happened to these women? The whole idea of border checkpoints is to have collections of law enforcement officers in one place, then force everyone including maybe criminals through that one place so we can catch the bad guys. But when the bad guys become border guards themselves and use that position of power to sexually exploit the citizenry, that kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Where were the other guards when this (allegedly) happened? Why didn't they do anything to stop it?
4) These three women are Canadian. They live and presumably work in Canada. They have filed their suits in an American court, and are represented by an American lawyer. If they plan to show up for their court dates, how are they going to get there? The only way they can even show up in court to make their case against the border guards is by going through a border checkpoint and subjecting themselves to "normal" pat downs and personal searches by the armed coworkers and friends of the people they are suing. This, in particular, illustrates the ridiculousness of our border system. I don't know if their lawyer is able to stand-in for them so that they never have to be present, but if I were one of these women, I would certainly hope so.
Sometimes I think that people who don't live near the border, or who have never lived in another country, have simply never thought about these issues. But clearly a lot of people have, and I'm sure many of them would think I'm some pot-smoking far-left hippie for having these thoughts. I guess that's really what boggles my mind-- that so many people, the clear majority it seems, think that the current border system is the right, decent, moral way to handle issues of security and law enforcement. And where they think it's wrong, it's because the system doesn't go far enough. That simply doesn't make sense to me, at least not in a society that claims to value liberty and personal freedom.
Now, as far as I can tell, the lawsuits have just been filed, so innocent until proven guilty and all that still applies. But it just strikes me as completely ridiculous that the system is set up to even make crimes like this possible. How ridiculous? Let me count the ways...
1) Why do we, as a society, believe it's remotely appropriate to stop and search women on a routine shopping trip? Bear in mind, when you cross the border, they don't just let everyone through and only stop the suspicious ones. Everyone is stopped and has to give the guard an account of why they want to cross, where they're going, when they're going back and any other questions the guard feels like asking. The act of trying to cross a border makes you suspicious enough by itself to warrant interrogation. If this was done in the middle of New York, or Chicago, or St. Louis, Americans would rightly consider it repugnant and even tyrannical. Yet when it's done at the border, we cheer.
2) What in the hell is "a normal pat down or a normal personal search"? Since when in this supposedly freedom-loving country are pat downs and personal searches normal? Even if I'm completely off-base with point #1 and interrogation by armed enforcement officers for the crime of wanting to go shopping is entirely appropriate, how does that lead to pat downs and personal searches being normal? Whatever happened to being secure in our persons, papers and effects? I'm sorry, but I simply don't think it's reasonable to be subject to armed searches solely for going about routine business in a free society (and I mean "reasonable" in both the modern and Fourth Amendment senses). The only suspicious thing about these women was that they happened to be in Canada before wanting to visit America.
3) Even if I'm wrong on both #1 and #2, and personal pat downs on your way to the store are reasonable, shouldn't we have protections against obvious abuses like what (allegedly) happened to these women? The whole idea of border checkpoints is to have collections of law enforcement officers in one place, then force everyone including maybe criminals through that one place so we can catch the bad guys. But when the bad guys become border guards themselves and use that position of power to sexually exploit the citizenry, that kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Where were the other guards when this (allegedly) happened? Why didn't they do anything to stop it?
4) These three women are Canadian. They live and presumably work in Canada. They have filed their suits in an American court, and are represented by an American lawyer. If they plan to show up for their court dates, how are they going to get there? The only way they can even show up in court to make their case against the border guards is by going through a border checkpoint and subjecting themselves to "normal" pat downs and personal searches by the armed coworkers and friends of the people they are suing. This, in particular, illustrates the ridiculousness of our border system. I don't know if their lawyer is able to stand-in for them so that they never have to be present, but if I were one of these women, I would certainly hope so.
Sometimes I think that people who don't live near the border, or who have never lived in another country, have simply never thought about these issues. But clearly a lot of people have, and I'm sure many of them would think I'm some pot-smoking far-left hippie for having these thoughts. I guess that's really what boggles my mind-- that so many people, the clear majority it seems, think that the current border system is the right, decent, moral way to handle issues of security and law enforcement. And where they think it's wrong, it's because the system doesn't go far enough. That simply doesn't make sense to me, at least not in a society that claims to value liberty and personal freedom.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Social Security and The Payroll Tax Cut
Last Friday, Congress passed another extension to the payroll tax cut. It looks like this one will last until the end of 2012, at least. This has always been an issue that seemed like a slam dunk to me, especially for conservatives and libertarians. We spend so much time saying taxes are too high, so when one of the most liberal Presidents in living memory actually wants to cut taxes, why would we ever say no? Nevertheless, many Republicans and even a few libertarians I admire have resisted this tax cut, allowing the media to paint this most recent extension as "handing President Barack Obama a major victory in this election year" (that's Reuters at the Yahoo link above).
Even though this isn't likely to come up again for another ten months or so, I left a comment on Coyote's post above, and I'd like to echo those ideas here. If taxes are too high, I think we should cut them any chance we can, because we don't get too many chances. But the main issue with the payroll tax cut, for me, is how it relates to Social Security reform.
The Personal Case for Reform
I'm young enough that two things are true for me when it comes to Social Security:
1) The Cliff. The program isn't going to be there for me when I retire, not without major cuts to benefits or major tax increases. The most relevant graph is on slide 15 of this CBO report, reproduced at right. Although revenues are projected to stay rather constant, outlays are already greater than revenues and are expected to grow even more. That is, they're expected to grow until the trust fund runs out in the late 2030s, and the "payable benefits" line has a dramatic cliff. Suffice it to say, my earliest-possible retirement date doesn't come until after that cliff.
There are some (relatively) minor changes that could be made to push that cliff back a few years, such as raising the retirement age, raising the tax rate, changing the cost-of-living adjustment calculation, means testing benefits, etc. We might even push it back a few decades, but this ignores that in 2008 (PDF), the cliff wasn't supposed to come until the late 2040s. In less than four years, the cliff is some fourteen years closer. Considering demographics, including the high probability of advances in life extension, pushing the cliff back will only be a temporary solution (and we may not succeed at pushing it back in the first place).
2) There is still hope. If we do manage to enact meaningful reform (meaning some kind of personal accounts that move us away from pay-as-you-go), my retirement is far enough in the future that I have time to save up enough for my own retirement within the new system.
For these reasons, I personally hope that we switch to something like the Chilean model as soon as possible.
The Societal Case for Reform
Obviously, not everyone will be persuaded to do what is best for me alone, but I also believe that this is the best approach for the rest of society as well. The two facts above are even more true for everyone younger than me, and they are also mostly true for those a few years older than me. On the other hand, no serious proposed Social Security reform touches those who are already on benefits, and most don't change the program at all for those 55 or older, so those two groups won't see any difference anyway.
Those who stand to lose the most from immediate reform are therefore those in the 40-55 age range. However, given probable medical advances in the coming decades, those who are now in their 40s and 50s can likely expect to live to their 80s, 90s or beyond. They will live past the approaching cliff, and will have to deal with the same cuts in benefits that I would. The difference is that, unlike me, they might be able to push the cliff past their own deaths with only minor reforms.
The Payroll Tax Cut
The Social Security trust fund is held in Treasury securities. Like all Treasury securities, when the securities in the trust fund are redeemed, they are paid for from the general fund. Since the Social Security Administration is now running on a deficit, redeeming the Treasury securities it holds, Social Security benefits are already being paid for, in part, by the general fund. That general fund comes from all the other taxes we pay. The Social Security trust fund is real, but it is funded through general tax dollars, not through some special pile of cash we've kept separate from the rest of the economy somehow
This is a marvelous accounting gimmick. Indeed, from my view, the biggest argument against Social Security reform today is the false idea that nothing is wrong because we have the trust fund. Therefore, anything we can do to dispel this idea will be useful in achieving real reform early enough to make a difference for people like me.
How do we dispel this false idea? Well, education, partly through blog posts like this, is one way to do it. But a more effective way is to erase the accounting gimmick itself-- that is, draw down the trust fund until no one is able to ignore that coming cliff. The payroll tax cut accomplishes exactly that. If we keep the tax cut in place, Social Security runs a larger annual deficit, and has to draw down the trust fund faster than planned. The sooner we draw down the trust fund, the sooner we'll see real reform.
With the payroll tax cut, we're more likely to see real Social Security reform sooner. Add to that the libertarian-minded benefit of cutting any tax and the economics-minded benefit of giving every worker a little extra take-home pay, and, as I see it, extending the payroll tax cut is a clear victory for the good guys.
Even though this isn't likely to come up again for another ten months or so, I left a comment on Coyote's post above, and I'd like to echo those ideas here. If taxes are too high, I think we should cut them any chance we can, because we don't get too many chances. But the main issue with the payroll tax cut, for me, is how it relates to Social Security reform.
The Personal Case for Reform
I'm young enough that two things are true for me when it comes to Social Security:
There are some (relatively) minor changes that could be made to push that cliff back a few years, such as raising the retirement age, raising the tax rate, changing the cost-of-living adjustment calculation, means testing benefits, etc. We might even push it back a few decades, but this ignores that in 2008 (PDF), the cliff wasn't supposed to come until the late 2040s. In less than four years, the cliff is some fourteen years closer. Considering demographics, including the high probability of advances in life extension, pushing the cliff back will only be a temporary solution (and we may not succeed at pushing it back in the first place).
2) There is still hope. If we do manage to enact meaningful reform (meaning some kind of personal accounts that move us away from pay-as-you-go), my retirement is far enough in the future that I have time to save up enough for my own retirement within the new system.
For these reasons, I personally hope that we switch to something like the Chilean model as soon as possible.
The Societal Case for Reform
Obviously, not everyone will be persuaded to do what is best for me alone, but I also believe that this is the best approach for the rest of society as well. The two facts above are even more true for everyone younger than me, and they are also mostly true for those a few years older than me. On the other hand, no serious proposed Social Security reform touches those who are already on benefits, and most don't change the program at all for those 55 or older, so those two groups won't see any difference anyway.
Those who stand to lose the most from immediate reform are therefore those in the 40-55 age range. However, given probable medical advances in the coming decades, those who are now in their 40s and 50s can likely expect to live to their 80s, 90s or beyond. They will live past the approaching cliff, and will have to deal with the same cuts in benefits that I would. The difference is that, unlike me, they might be able to push the cliff past their own deaths with only minor reforms.
The Payroll Tax Cut
The Social Security trust fund is held in Treasury securities. Like all Treasury securities, when the securities in the trust fund are redeemed, they are paid for from the general fund. Since the Social Security Administration is now running on a deficit, redeeming the Treasury securities it holds, Social Security benefits are already being paid for, in part, by the general fund. That general fund comes from all the other taxes we pay. The Social Security trust fund is real, but it is funded through general tax dollars, not through some special pile of cash we've kept separate from the rest of the economy somehow
This is a marvelous accounting gimmick. Indeed, from my view, the biggest argument against Social Security reform today is the false idea that nothing is wrong because we have the trust fund. Therefore, anything we can do to dispel this idea will be useful in achieving real reform early enough to make a difference for people like me.
How do we dispel this false idea? Well, education, partly through blog posts like this, is one way to do it. But a more effective way is to erase the accounting gimmick itself-- that is, draw down the trust fund until no one is able to ignore that coming cliff. The payroll tax cut accomplishes exactly that. If we keep the tax cut in place, Social Security runs a larger annual deficit, and has to draw down the trust fund faster than planned. The sooner we draw down the trust fund, the sooner we'll see real reform.
With the payroll tax cut, we're more likely to see real Social Security reform sooner. Add to that the libertarian-minded benefit of cutting any tax and the economics-minded benefit of giving every worker a little extra take-home pay, and, as I see it, extending the payroll tax cut is a clear victory for the good guys.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Libertarian Purity Test
Bryan Caplan, who blogs at EconLog, has a "Libertarian Purity Test" that I decided to take. Out of 160 points, I scored a measly 47, four points below his threshold for "medium-core libertarian." For scores between 31-50 points, he says, "Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on."
Some of the answers, especially in Part III, that he considers "libertarian," I would consider straight up "anarchist." I think libertarianism is distinct from anarchism in that libertarianism realizes there are some legitimate roles for government, while anarchism does not. While Caplan would consider a score of 160 a "perfect libertarian," I would consider that person an anarchist, not a libertarian. Otherwise, why the need for two separate words, other than branding?
Part I has 30 questions, and I answered "yes" for 25 of them. Below are the five questions for which I answered "no" for various reasons.
Are worker safety regulations too strict? I have no idea one way or the other. Back in my factory days, I remember safety was usually heavily emphasized, and I don't know how much of that was due to regulation or not. On the other hand, a heavy emphasis on safety seemed appropriate.
Does the Federal Reserve have too much discretionary power? It may, although I don't think it should follow some programmatic rule. On the other hand, I don't feel like I've researched "free money" theories adequately enough to be comfortable supporting them.
Should marijuana be legalized? If I was building society from scratch, I would probably make it mostly legal, and I think it at least should be allowed in certain medical situations with the same oversight as other prescriptions. On the other hand, I'm not persuaded by most of the arguments of the pro-legalization crowd; I think they tend to overlook path dependency.
Should all sex between consenting adults be legal -- even for money? Leaving aside the issue of prostitution, there are cases I believe where sex between consenting adults should not be legal -- for instance, between a police officer and someone they have under arrest.
Does the U.S. intervene too much in other countries? Perhaps, although there are also cases, such as Syria at the moment, where I think the US does not intervene enough.
Part II has 20 questions, and I answered "no" for 16 of them. Most of these questions take the form "Should we abolish X?" Although I believe many of these things should be curtailed, sometimes dramatically, I don't necessarily support complete abolishment. Some questions where I want to comment, including the four for which I answered "yes":
Should we abolish Social Security? Should we abolish Medicare? I think both of these programs would be dramatically improved through privatization and some kind of personal account scheme along the lines of the Chilean model. I'm sure progressives would call it abolishment, but I wouldn't. Privatization of these programs, which would ultimately move them completely off-budget since the personal accounts would pay for themselves, also allows me to answer "yes" to the two questions about reducing taxes and spending by 50%, when combined with some other reasonable cuts.
Would you abolish at least half of existing federal regulatory agencies? Yes, although this is mostly because I think we should consolidate many of the regulatory agencies to eliminate overhead.
Should immigration laws be abolished? I interpret this narrowly as laws regarding actual immigration. That is, I do not think governments have any business saying where people can live or work based simply on where they were born. On the other hand, I do think there is a role for border security, although I would prefer it to be far less intrusive and arbitrary than it currently is.
Should the Supreme Court strike down economic regulation as unconstitutional? While I'm tempted to say yes, I don't know enough about what would constitutionally be considered "economic regulation" to be comfortable actually saying yes. Constitutional law has some bizarre definitions from an economic viewpoint, like the tax/penalty distinction.
Part III has 14 questions, and I answered "no" for 12 of them. The two for which I answered "yes":
Should highways and roads be privatized? I'm not sure they all necessarily should, but in general I think we'd be better off with more privatized infrastructure.
Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders? Certainly not always, and not in general. But in certain very narrowly-defined cases, I would say yes, it may be morally permissible. For example, most people probably consider Claus von Stauffenberg a hero, even though what he tried to do amounts to "vigilante justice" against a government leader.
Some of the answers, especially in Part III, that he considers "libertarian," I would consider straight up "anarchist." I think libertarianism is distinct from anarchism in that libertarianism realizes there are some legitimate roles for government, while anarchism does not. While Caplan would consider a score of 160 a "perfect libertarian," I would consider that person an anarchist, not a libertarian. Otherwise, why the need for two separate words, other than branding?
Part I has 30 questions, and I answered "yes" for 25 of them. Below are the five questions for which I answered "no" for various reasons.
Are worker safety regulations too strict? I have no idea one way or the other. Back in my factory days, I remember safety was usually heavily emphasized, and I don't know how much of that was due to regulation or not. On the other hand, a heavy emphasis on safety seemed appropriate.
Does the Federal Reserve have too much discretionary power? It may, although I don't think it should follow some programmatic rule. On the other hand, I don't feel like I've researched "free money" theories adequately enough to be comfortable supporting them.
Should marijuana be legalized? If I was building society from scratch, I would probably make it mostly legal, and I think it at least should be allowed in certain medical situations with the same oversight as other prescriptions. On the other hand, I'm not persuaded by most of the arguments of the pro-legalization crowd; I think they tend to overlook path dependency.
Should all sex between consenting adults be legal -- even for money? Leaving aside the issue of prostitution, there are cases I believe where sex between consenting adults should not be legal -- for instance, between a police officer and someone they have under arrest.
Does the U.S. intervene too much in other countries? Perhaps, although there are also cases, such as Syria at the moment, where I think the US does not intervene enough.
Part II has 20 questions, and I answered "no" for 16 of them. Most of these questions take the form "Should we abolish X?" Although I believe many of these things should be curtailed, sometimes dramatically, I don't necessarily support complete abolishment. Some questions where I want to comment, including the four for which I answered "yes":
Should we abolish Social Security? Should we abolish Medicare? I think both of these programs would be dramatically improved through privatization and some kind of personal account scheme along the lines of the Chilean model. I'm sure progressives would call it abolishment, but I wouldn't. Privatization of these programs, which would ultimately move them completely off-budget since the personal accounts would pay for themselves, also allows me to answer "yes" to the two questions about reducing taxes and spending by 50%, when combined with some other reasonable cuts.
Would you abolish at least half of existing federal regulatory agencies? Yes, although this is mostly because I think we should consolidate many of the regulatory agencies to eliminate overhead.
Should immigration laws be abolished? I interpret this narrowly as laws regarding actual immigration. That is, I do not think governments have any business saying where people can live or work based simply on where they were born. On the other hand, I do think there is a role for border security, although I would prefer it to be far less intrusive and arbitrary than it currently is.
Should the Supreme Court strike down economic regulation as unconstitutional? While I'm tempted to say yes, I don't know enough about what would constitutionally be considered "economic regulation" to be comfortable actually saying yes. Constitutional law has some bizarre definitions from an economic viewpoint, like the tax/penalty distinction.
Part III has 14 questions, and I answered "no" for 12 of them. The two for which I answered "yes":
Should highways and roads be privatized? I'm not sure they all necessarily should, but in general I think we'd be better off with more privatized infrastructure.
Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders? Certainly not always, and not in general. But in certain very narrowly-defined cases, I would say yes, it may be morally permissible. For example, most people probably consider Claus von Stauffenberg a hero, even though what he tried to do amounts to "vigilante justice" against a government leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
