More Reality Checks of Conservative & Liberal Rhetoric

1) Inferring that Obama was/is completely responsible for: job losses during his first few months in office, current food stamp rate, # of people below poverty line, and unemployment rate (which is actually closer to 16-20% due to people ceasing the job hunt or losing benefits).

Reality check- Obama, as all presidents do, had to accept the hand he was dealt and the snowball was already heading downhill. The food stamp, poverty, and unemployment rates are due to long term effects of the financial/housing collapses. Presidents inevitably get the blame and/or credit for economic conditions, but truthfully there's a relatively small correlation between most things that happen and one president's policies.

Claiming "credit" for the slowing of job losses is another example of rhetoric we see from all administrations (Obama's is no different). Regardless of who was in office, the rate of job loss was going to slow as Tarp 1 "began to" calm the markets turmoil and people's fears (although the recovery could have been faster, see here). However, from a "calming" standpoint, Obama "should" be given credit for being a smooth talker which was quite useful in stemming fear/panic during the economic/banking fallout. By comparison, Bush was a terrible communicator.

External factors such as innovation cycles (tech boom of 90's), world events (Japan tsunami, European crisis), political climate (congress), and emotional conditions have had far greater impact than what any single administration has done. Emotional? Yes. Emotions & confidence have a huge impact on how severe drops & climbs of things like financial, housing, and job markets will be. Those events, in turn, play a part in things like tax receipts, inflation, borrowing/saving rates, etc. Emotions had a great deal to do with the housing/banking implosion which was caused and/or extended by everything from greed , envy, naivete, and visceral hatred of "perceived bailouts". Blame extends from MBS creators and unscrupulous mortgage bankers, to the "make homes affordable" and deregulation acts of congress, and even to people with attitudes of "keeping up with the Jones" and/or "not wanting other people to get a deal/bailout" via loan modifications.

Two of the most important aspects of job creation are "demand" and "cost of labor". Employers won't create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs and they won't expand, ramp up production, of hire long term employees based on "fake demand" (i.e. temporary, stimulus money jobs). Currently, built up demand of delayed purchases is causing some economic numbers to look better (which improves the emotional perception of people). Those perceptions can extend this consumer demand, and therefore the length of the improved numbers. As people "feel" more confident they'll buy more (creating "demand") and that creates jobs, which creates more demand, and so on. The Q is for how long? There are other variables that could cause perceptions to look worse and easily de-rail things. Cost of labor impacts how many people an employer can afford to employ and also impacts where those employees are hired. As labor costs (shipping costs as well) rise some of those jobs will come back here. The congress has much more direct pwr and associated responsibility for what happens in the economy than a president but "all" presidents end up taking more blame and getting more credit than they deserve...

2) It's equally silly to give Obama so much credit for killing Bin Laden and stating that Clinton and Bush couldn't do it or weren't paying attention to looking for him.

Reality check- I used to participate in the planning of heliborne, mech, and boat assaults and can tell you that it makes me laugh (in a wow, those people are crazy sort of way) when I hear the accolades for Obama and slams on Clinton/Bush irt this. In reality you can't just say the others had chances and missed but Obama succeeded. Why? Because the overall conditions (i.e. intel reliability, threat assessment, friendly situation, location, weather, political climate at location, etc.) are wildly different in every scenario. Therefore making a simplistic assertion that prior presidents missed their opportunities, and saying things like "it took Obama to get Osama" are moronic "at best".

Along similar lines- The absurd argument that Bush wasn't concerned with, or paying attention to, Bin Laden based on some out of context sound bites from him answering a reporter's repeated Q's irt the topic back in 02' (or was it 03'?). Anyone who listened or watched the entire questioning process should be able to realize Bush was annoyed/dismissive of "the questions and reporter" more than anything else. There was also a degree of "showing" a dismissive attitude towards Bin laden in a "he's dead to me" sort of way that I appreciate because even now I dislike mentioning his name because allowing him to disappear into obscurity (while remembering the lessons learned of course) is the ultimate slap in the face to a terrorist who liked notoriety. Anyway, to imply that Bush didn't care about and/or wasn't concerned with Bin Laden is simply ludicrous.

Reality Checks of Conservative & Liberal Rhetoric

As an absolute independent (i.e. not democrat or republican) looking at things void of those "filters" I usually get people on both sides upset as they accuse me of being from the side they oppose. Anyway, here are a few reality checks irt often brought up rhetoric:

1) The mantra that "taxing the rich" kills job creation and, similarly, "tax breaks" create jobs.

Reality check- This one does have some truth to it but not nearly as much as some would have you believe. Yes, the rich do account for many job creations but it's nowhere near the levels that purveyors of this rhetoric proclaim when they infer "every dollar" kept by the wealthiest is used for job creation. Top tax rates would have to be MUCH higher iot impact reinvestment policies of an already successful businesses. Anyone with business experience will tell you that the most important factor when considering business expansion or hiring is demand. Regardless of any tax breaks/incentives that may be offered, a business will fail without demand "period".

However, the alternative options of stimulus packages for extended unemployment, state aid funds, etc, are no better. While they sound nice and actually "do" ease a painful downturn, they don't spur on meaningful, long term, job creation... Current and potential employers "see through" the temporary nature of stimulus packages and will not do any real expansion or long term job creation based on temporarily manipulated demand that has little long term impact.

2) Taxes, in general, prevent job creation by innovators/inventors.

Reality check- This one does have "some truth" to it but not nearly as much as some would have you believe. Top tax rates would have to be much higher iot have a "seriously dramatic" impact on already successful businesses reinvestment policies.

The vast majority of innovators/inventors are focused on the challenge of creating or improving something and aren't even thinking about "taxes" they may eventually pay. That's especially true on the young innovator side because taxes aren't even a concern to most young inventor/innovators. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, MySpace, Yahoo, etc. were started without worrying about what the tax code was and they created a whole lot of jobs...

3) Arguments that big oil tax break are necessary.

Reality check- The argument is so weak that people touting it consistently contradict themselves. They'll say: 1. "The dem's want to blame gas prices on oil co's but the oil co's margins are tiny so they're not responsible for high gas prices!

Then, during a different tirade, they'll say 2. "Look how expensive gasoline is...Can you believe the dem's want to take away oil co's incentives?...In who's world does that seem like it will help bring prices down?!"

Number 1 indicates they have practically no impact on pump prices while 2 indicates the exact opposite (contradictory). #1 is correct (they make little per gallon)., various taxes and fees push up prices (as well as demand obviously). #2 is a smokescreen in favor of "not removing" the tax breaks. Tax breaks/gov't incentives have a place in helping along various industries during specific conditions and for limited time periods. Things Oil co's haven't been in those conditions for a long time and some of them had even said (when oil was around $30/barrel) that there would be no reason for them to need tax incentives if oil was above $50/barrel...

It's also very disingenuous to hear petroleum lobyists & supporters say "we should take away tax breaks & incentives from everyone so we all have an EVEN playing field". That's like having a race to the 50th floor and saying "we should all have to use the stairs so we have an even playing field" (after having used the elevator to get to the 30th floor)...

The Supermajority Voting Requirement Explanation:

1) There's an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

The benefit a simple majority provides, of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. The simple majority voting examples I give here are totally accurate but might be easier to get through with a calculator to verify the figures accuracy and help with the understanding of it.

2) To continue a disagreement as to the need for a supermajority, after going through and understanding the mathematical reasons in the above link, is to argue that it would make perfect sense to allow Idaho residents to vote with us irt raising our WA state sales tax with a "simple" majority vote. In actuality, a supermajority would not only be wanted, it would in fact be a necessity, iot achieve a more fair vote. This would once again be due to allowing a group of people (Idaho residents in this case) to vote for something "they benefit from" yet "don't have to pay for". Exactly what occurs with a simple majority property levy vote.

How could anyone seriously/honestly believe that passing a 12% sales tax on WA residents (due to the influence of ID voters), when only 29-38% of WA voters approved it, would make sense or seem fair/democratic...? Yet that's exactly what could happen if a simple majority was used. It's a perfect example of where a "simple" majority would be a flawed vote (as it is with property levies). The mathematical evidence is unquestionable, and a bit silly to argue (unless the math aspect just isn't understood). I've tried to provide simple examples but you can't force someone to "accept" the truth, you can only "provide" the truth.

*****To clarify, the "simple" majority is the absolute correct vote in "most" situations (everyone voting pays & benefits equally: President, Govenor, Statewide taxes, etc.) but is flawed when used in situations where a group of people are allowed to vote for something they don't have to pay for even though they enjoy benefits from it (like property levy votes). This brings back the question irt these votes: Which one takes priority, personal benefit (simple majority) or truth & correctness (supermajority)?...

3) Irt the argument that it takes more yes votes to counter no votes and that it somehow is less democratic: A supermajority actually makes the vote "more" democratic in these types of votes. The idea it takes more yes votes to counter no votes is correct (although not necessarily 2-1) and is the exact and necessary intent of supermajority votes. ((You'd want it that way in order to account for the yes votes from the Idaho residents voting yes to raise your WA state sales tax in the above analogy and the reasons are just as justified in the case of property levies. The basic mathematics of the problem show it to be 100% true in both cases.))

The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of people don't have an actual understanding of the mathematical "why/how" reasons that a supermajority is required in certain situations (property levy votes are, in fact, one of those situations). With a better understanding, the law would have never been reversed and we would still have a super majority requirement (especially given that HJR4204 passed by "less than" 1%).

4) BTW: The argument that "renters pay levy taxes via rent" is "ridiculously simplistic" because only in a perfectly linked, utopian, system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can't get a renter at a price that covers the costs of the levy, he/she has to lower the rent, "eating" the expense, in order "to simply rent the unit out and avoid a vacancy".

5) ----As a side note, a vote "to change" a current voting requirement should always require thecurrent standard iot change that standard (no matter what the vote deals with). In other words, going "from" a simple standard should require a simple majority to change it. Likewise, going "from" a supermajority standard should require a supermajority to change. It defies basic logic, mathematics, and common sense that a "lesser" requirement would be used to "get around a stricter requirement" that was seen, by a select group, as "a pesky rule" preventing their ballot items from passing.----

The solutions are either:

1) Requiring a 60% Super Majority to pass property tax issues
2) Allowing only levy payers to vote on those measures...

3) A sales tax with total revenue evenly distributed on a per student basis would be a much more equitable solution (everyone pays in) and would also remove the disadvantage that can occur in lower property value school districts. Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way.

--->Once again, the conundrum: The benefit a simple majority provides of aiding in the achievement of your desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. So which takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

Examples proving the mathematical necessity of the Supermajority in specific situations:

This post provides mathematical examples proving why/when a supermajority is necessary. It expands on the basic explanation of supermajority requirements here and uses property levy examples (which are a type of vote that needs a supermajority).

A supermajority vote is necessary anytime you allow a subset group of people to vote on a matter that's beneficial to them but they don't pay for.

--Abbreviations used: Levy Payer (LP), Non-Levy Payer (NLP)

--Colors (occasionally used): Blue for LP items /Red for NLP items

--Assumptions used: 100 people vote

1) If all 100 voters are LPs: The vote should require 51 votes to pass (The basic Simple Majority).

2) However, if the 100 are split we discover that the vote needs to be a supermajority. Here's why (using 55 LPs & 45 NLPs):

To get the simple majority of LPs you need at least 28/55 of them. The problem is that with the introduction of the 45 NLPs voters, you've created a flawed vote. Flawed because you could get passage with 5 LPs (a far cry from the 28) and 45 NLPs voting yes (5+45=50). That would be passing a tax with only 9% (5/55) support from the LPs who'd actually pay the tax! If NLPs voted yes by 85% (.85x45=38), the levy could still pass with a meager approval rate from LPs of 21% (.21x55=12)...(38+12=50).

Obviously a 100% (45/45) NLP voting rate is extreme, and 85% would be quite high, but the mere fact it's a possibility shows the flaw. However, a very realistic 75% (34/45) of NLPs would cause passage with a mere 31%(17/55) LPs approval rate (still extremely unfair). Obviously, passing a tax on people, when only 31% approved it, is a flawed system. By no means is that an "extreme" example. High approval rates are much more common among people who benefit from, but don't pay for, something. Even using 65% (29/45) NLPs you find that "a minority" 38% (21/55) of LPs still results in the tax being passed upon them. How could anyone support a belief that it's ok to pass a tax on people when only 38% of them actually voted for it? How could that be seen as fair/democratic?

3) How about this: If Washington was having a vote to increase the sales tax to 12% you surely would not want people from Idaho/Oregon allowed to vote on it. If they "were" allowed to participate, you'd want a "supermajority vote" because, as stated above, you'd be adding a subset of voters who wouldn't pay the extra tax but would benefit nonetheless (as people crossed the border to avoid the increase). Wouldn't you be a little upset if that 12% tax passed with only 21-38% support of actual WA state voters? Would you think that was "democratic"...? Remember, the mere fact that it's possible shows the flaw (and these aren't even unrealistic voting figures).

4) To correct this problem: Using the same 100 people example, you start by accounting for the baseline premise of wanting at least a 50% (simple majority) approval rate among the actual "LPs" (WA residents in above example) who pay the tax (.5x55=28). Now, you simply make an educated estimate of the "NLP" yes voting rate. Again, a higher yes rate is perfectly logical/normal when people vote for something they benefit from but don't pay for (especially with all the exploitative "for the kids" ads)... Using the 75% rate (from above) we get (.75x45=34). Adding 28+34 yields 62 votes required (a supermajority 62%). The worst case scenario of 45 NLPs voting yes results in 28+45=73% required to pass with at least a "simple majority" of 28 LPs.

Even though 60% is less than the above 62% & 73% figures it still represents a good all around happy medium figure to be used in these types of situations (subset introduced into equation) and it's a heck of a lot better than the simple majority rule that was swindled in 2007's HJR4204 (passing w/less than 1% of vote). A vote that most likely wouldn't have passed if people had a better understanding of the mathematical reasons necessitating a supermajority...

Again, it's basic mathematics that shows why a supermajority vote is required in order to simply even out the vote and account for the addition of a group of voters who don't have to pay for the very thing they're voting for.

****If a levy passes by 60% there's a good chance it would've also passed with a simple majority vote consisting of only LPs (demonstrated by the 28 in above paragraph). Therefore, the tax could be seen as resulting from a legitimate vote. However, any that pass with less than a supermajority are mathematically flawed voting results. It's quite different from being seen as emotionally flawed when an item someone favor fails.

The solutions are either:

1) Requiring a 60% Super Majority to pass property tax issues
2) Allowing only levy payers to vote on those measures...

3) A sales tax with total revenue evenly distributed on a per student basis would be a much more equitable solution (everyone pays in) and would also remove the disadvantage that can occur in lower property value school districts. Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way.

5) There's an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?... The benefit a simple majority provides of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. So again, which takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

Enough backdoor tactics when changing voting requirements!!!

----A vote "to change" a current voting requirement should always require the current standard iot change that standard (no matter what the vote deals with). In other words, going "from" a simple majority standard should require a simple majority to change it. Likewise, going "from" a supermajority standard should require a supermajority to change it. It defies basic logic, mathematics, and common sense that a "lesser" requirement would be used to "get around a stricter requirement". Yet, that's exactly what happened when a group of people successfully used this unscrupulous tactic to pass HJR 4204 in order to get around what they viewed as "a pesky rule" preventing their ballot items from passing.----

Same Sex Marriage in WA and Nationally

It's pretty much a certainty that the enough petition signatures will be gathered to put the issue to a vote. However, if a successful Constitutional case is made, it "may" not go to a public vote. Here are my general thoughts on the topic: 1. It's extremely hypocritical for people who rail about keeping gov't out of their lives (in a "don't tread on me" sort of way) to then argue that "they want" gov't (as long as it's in someone else's life). The domestic partnership law still denies partners of many things that other married couples enjoy like the ability to file married filling jointly as one example. Others argue that a state ruling doesn't change that so it doesn't relate. What? Obviously it will be easier to address at the federal level after more and more states pass these laws. Eventually it will be the case so let's just get there already. 2. Irt the arguments I've heard that marriage is about encouraging "reproduction of the species": A hundred yrs ago this was more of a valid point because sex, let alone having children, out of wedlock was condemned such that most people took many dates before even holding hands or kissing. Until "relatively" recently, not many children were being born without a marriage to kick things off. A decline in the marriage rate (down from 72% in 1960 to 51% in 2010) shows this has been changing. In many ways we'd be better off going more in that direction (i.e. slowing down a bit) but if we take a realistic view of things (TV shows glamorizing teen pregnancy, celebrities having kids & remaining unmarried, increased sexuality in TV & movies, etc.) it's obvious that's not going to happen. 3. Irt comments about religious beliefs: Allowing same sex marriages at the state/federal level doesn't impact churches in the least so introducing particular religious beliefs to the argument simply distracts from the underlying issue of equality. We have a long time tradition of freedom to practice your religion but not freedom to force your religion’s beliefs on those who don’t subscribe to them. Furthermore, a given church/religion doesn't have to recognize the marriage or do the service if it doesn't want to. Therefore, if someone wants to be legally (state/federal) recognized as being married, they should be allowed to do so without people unleashing such furor. 4. All that being said, I also believe there's a DNA issue that influences people being homosexual. By no means does that mean I'm saying homosexuals are bad people (in the same way people predisposed to other genetic issues aren't bad people). I believe the feelings come just as natural as those felt by heterosexuals (due to the DNA coding that impacts how people feel). I think we're less than a generation from isolating the area of DNA that leads to homosexual feelings and being able to "treat" it. When that occurs, the dilemma will become do we address the DNA issue (like we'll be able to do to other DNA issues) while someone is a baby, or would that be seen as making decisions for someone who may not want "to be changed" (which is a tricky concept). The trickiness will be that if we know the feelings of not wanting to be changed will exist later in life (due to the very genetic coding issue to be treated), then would it make sense to "wait" till they were older (16 for example) to "ask" them what we already know their DNA will be telling them feels natural. On the other hand that same person would say heterosexual feelings felt natural (at the same example age) "if" a DNA treatment (causing heterosexual feelings to dominate) had been administered to him/her when they were a baby. It will be interesting for sure.

Wake up WA State voters; you're property taxes can be UNFAIRLY raised now!!

-

Revisiting an old salty wound in the unjust category:

It was certainly a "backdoor" manner in which HJR 4204 reversed the "supermajority vote" requirement for raising property taxes. How can you vote to change a supermajority requirement using a vote that only requires a “simple majority”?! It would've been perfectly reasonable/acceptable if a supermajority vote had been used to overturn the supermajority requirement but being able to use the “lower” (simple majority) requirement to change the "higher" requirement should seem seriously wrong to all voters.

It boils down to a flawed loophole that allows for "all" amendments to the constitution to need a simple majority vote (without regard to what the amendment actually changes). I.e. the law fails to take into account the rare times that a vote would actually be dealing with a change that impacts an established voting "percentage" requirement as opposed to an amendment that had nothing to do with voting percentages. This needs to be addressed as well.

A big reason it "passed" (cough, cough) is simply because 1) so many people voting for it knew they weren't directly impacted (i.e. renters and people living with relatives) by property tax school levies and they just like "the idea" of their schools getting more money and 2) An innocent mistake whereas many people don't understand why (in certain situations) a supermajority should be required iot make it a truly fair vote. In fact, ANY vote that allows people to participate who aren't directly impacted (financially) should require a supermajority in order to simply help to make up for allowing a large number of people to vote for something (like property tax levies) who are aren't even affected by it (i.e. non property owners voting to raise taxes on someone else). However, if property owners were the only people allowed to vote on issues related to property taxes then a simple majority vote would be perfectly appropriate and fair.

**To the people who voted for 4204: It's like saying it would be alright to let the residents of Oregon vote alongside WA residents on a piece of legislation to raise Washington's sales tax to 12% and using a simple majority vote to do it. I doubt they'd be ok with that...


Read on if you're interested in an expanded explanation of why the supermajority vote is necessary to make it a "fair" vote...
---------------------------------------------------------

Examples: Assume 100 people are voting on a tax tied to property values:
--Abbreviations & colors used below: Levy Payer (LP), Non-Levy Payer (NLP)

1) "If" all 100 are LPs= The vote should require 51 votes to pass (The basic Simple Majority).

2) However, if the 100 consisted of 55 LPs & 45 NLPs the vote needs to be a supermajority. Here's why: To get a simple majority of LPs you need at least 28 to vote for the tax (28/55). The problem is that with the introduction of the 45 NLP voters, who aren't directly impacted, you've created a flawed vote. Flawed because you could get passage with as little as 6 LPs and 45NLPs voting yes (6+45=51%). That would pass the tax with only 11% (6/55=11%) support from the people who'd actually pay the tax!

Obviously a 100% (45/45) NLP voting rate is extreme but the mere fact it's a possibility shows the flaw. How about a very realistic 75% (34/45) of NLPs which would require only 31% (17/55) LPs to be passed (still extremely unfair). Obviously, passing a tax on people, when only 31% approved it, is a flawed system. Even using 64% (29/45) of NLPs you see that "a minority" 40% (22/55) of LPs still results in the tax being passed upon them.

3) The simple offset to correct this problem is to start with the baseline premise that at least a simple majority of LPs is required for passage. That means you need at least 28/55 PTPs to pass. Then, you simply have to make an educated estimate of the yes votes by NLPs. Again, it's perfectly logical that people are more likely to vote for a tax they get benefits from but don't pay for so using a potential rate of 70-80% is quite realistic. Using 75% produces .75x45=34 NLP yes votes. Recall, the premise dictates a simple majority of LPs is required for passage (28/55). Adding those figures yields 34+28=62 votes required. That equates to a 62% (62/100) vote requirement (which is a supermajority).

Adding more NLPs to the equation (&/or increasing their potential yes votes) would cause that required supermajority requirement of 62% to "potentially" go as high as 73% as follows: 45NLPs voting yes + the same 28 ("simple" majority of LPs) from above yields 45+28=73 votes (73/100= 73%). Using a 60% supermajority rule still wouldn't protect LPs in this example BUT it's a heck of a lot better than the simple majority rule that was "swindled" in 2007's HJR4204...

We should bring back equality by either:
1) Requiring a Super Majority to pass property tax issues "OR"
2) Allowing only property owners to vote on those measures... The other option is to just fund all schools by sales tax revenue (because everyone pays sales tax).
Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way (property owners would see their portion of the funding go down slightly while non-property owners would actually start paying a portion...)

4) By The Way: Contrary to uninformed viewpoints, renters do not always see their rents go up by the same amount landlords property taxes are increased. In a Utopian world that might be the case but "in the real world" landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Raising rent on a vacant property, or raising it such that it causes a vacancy, isn't a very sustainable business plan now is it? The property owner basically has to "eat" the additional expense in the same way a business experiences profit margin erosion when they can't pass along all their input cost increases for various reasons.

Let’s reverse 4204 and make these votes fair again!