Propositions for California

[zeegrim]

How will you guys be voting on them?

So far I'm thinking yes for the Indian tribe ones and no on the rest.

Just wondering what others are thinking about them, or is your single purpose to just vote Ron Paul and go home?

 

[RonPaulFTW08]

How will you guys be voting on them?

So far I'm thinking yes for the Indian tribe ones and no on the rest.

Just wondering what others are thinking about them, or is your single purpose to just vote Ron Paul and go home?

I voted No on 91-93 and Yes on 94-97.

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Only ones I know are No on 93, and yes on the gaming ones.

 

[paulgirl]

NO on ALL the propositions!

NO on the gaming propositions! Government should not be cutting special deals with small groups of people. Only 4 tribes get the deal, and the rest don't. The revenue sharing agreement is full of complicated language and loopholes that they can manipulate.

 

[Dan D.]

No on monopoly - no on 94-97. I don't know enough about 91-93.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What would Dr. No vote? That's what I'm voting on the propositions too...

Ok, I'll read them first, but I bet it will still be NO...

 

[Infamouswoodster]

What would Dr. No vote? That's what I'm voting on the propositions too...

Ok, I'll read them first, but I bet it will still be NO...

Great perspective. They cant even handle the laws and props they already have without going over budget or taxing us to death, Give Them the big RON PAUL NO!

Especially NO on 93! what a scam!

 

[jeffhenderson]

I voted the following ways on the propositions:

Proposition 91 - NO.
Apparently even the people who introduced this proposition are now against it.

Proposition 92 - NO.
I am against state-funded education. Even if I was for it, this proposition costs the taxpayers over $300 million annually to reduce fees by $5 per unit (to $15), when they are already among the very lowest fees in the country. It's not a great idea to lock in even more spending when California is already in terrible fiscal mess.

Proposition 93 - NO.
This messes with term limits. Apparently it would increase term limits for some and decrease it for others. From what I've read it seems like it will mostly extend them, which I am against.

Proposition 94 - NO.
Proposition 95 - NO.
Proposition 96 - YES.
Proposition 97 - YES.
I couldn't decide on these one. I am completely opposed to giving one race a monopoly on provision of a service. Sadly, voting yes or no won't change that. Voting yes will allow 4 tribes to have more slot machines and give the government a lot of revenue. Good for the government and those 4 tribes, bad for the 102 other tribes that don't get an increase. On the one hand I wanted to vote no, because I want the government to have less money, not more. Plus I don't want to award both parties (the tribes and the government) for their thievery of the public. On the other hand I wanted to vote yes, because it does allow more slot machines, barely inching the price closer towards market equilibrium.
Because I was so conflicted, I literally voted both ways.

 

[cv6nick]

If California wants to get out of debt, cut spending.

 

[paulgirl]

The Indian tribes are not honest businessman. They are cutting back room deals to get lots of money into the hands of a few greedy people.

We have a friend who belonged to one of those 4 tribes. He got thrown out of the tribe last year despite the fact that his mother is a full blood member of the tribe. Why? They have a new tribal president, who has committed to reducing the tribe at least 50% so that the favored few can get a bigger share of the massive gaming revenue. And that is BEFORE they get their new slots. The sleaze that goes on with this Indian gaming is even worse than the sleaze in Vegas.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Indian tribes are not honest businessman. They are cutting back room deals to get lots of money into the hands of a few greedy people.

We have a friend who belonged to one of those 4 tribes. He got thrown out of the tribe last year despite the fact that his mother is a full blood member of the tribe. Why? They have a new tribal president, who has committed to reducing the tribe at least 50% so that the favored few can get a bigger share of the massive gaming revenue. And that is BEFORE they get their new slots. The sleaze that goes on with this Indian gaming is even worse than the sleaze in Vegas.

WHAT! Sleaze and corruption in a government backed oligopoly? I can't imagine that...

 

[angrydragon]

I voted the following ways on the propositions:

Proposition 91 - NO.
Apparently even the people who introduced this proposition are now against it.

Proposition 92 - NO.
I am against state-funded education. Even if I was for it, this proposition costs the taxpayers over $300 million annually to reduce fees by $5 per unit (to $15), when they are already among the very lowest fees in the country. It's not a great idea to lock in even more spending when California is already in terrible fiscal mess.

Proposition 93 - NO.
This messes with term limits. Apparently it would increase term limits for some and decrease it for others. From what I've read it seems like it will mostly extend them, which I am against.

Proposition 94 - NO.
Proposition 95 - NO.
Proposition 96 - YES.
Proposition 97 - YES.
I couldn't decide on these one. I am completely opposed to giving one race a monopoly on provision of a service. Sadly, voting yes or no won't change that. Voting yes will allow 4 tribes to have more slot machines and give the government a lot of revenue. Good for the government and those 4 tribes, bad for the 102 other tribes that don't get an increase. On the one hand I wanted to vote no, because I want the government to have less money, not more. Plus I don't want to award both parties (the tribes and the government) for their thievery of the public. On the other hand I wanted to vote yes, because it does allow more slot machines, barely inching the price closer towards market equilibrium.
Because I was so conflicted, I literally voted both ways.

I voted NO on all for pretty much the same reasons.

 

[extrmmxer]

Vote NO on all of them.

 

[RonRules]

No against the gambling ones.

Here's the fundamental change. The GOVERNMENT is getting a bigger and bigger share of gambling revenues.

Also allowing a particular group of people to get such large revenues is just causing more discrimination and dissary among Indians themselves. Read above post.

 

[chucksheen]

Thanks for all the info people. We are voting no on all now.

 

[Stevo]

I am voting no on all of them them.
I don't really support term limits and this revision of the term limits law really stinks. The Govenator tried to tie it an independent redistricting plan and initially the Dems said OK. But they reneged. This term limit initiative is really for the benefit of a few legislators.
I am all for the Indians doing what they want on their land, but gaming initiatives are so full of provisions and loopholes for the tribes that I can't get behind them.
The ads running here say 'protect CAs revenue'. jeez, what a way to fund the state.

 

[Edward]

I voted No on 91-93 and Yes on 94-97.

Only ones I know are No on 93, and yes on the gaming ones.

Me, too... NO, NO, NO. YES, YES, YES, YES.

 

[Zapparulez]

I have not yet looked at the proposals, but based only on the amount of money spent on commercials supporting or opposing I always want to go against whatever group spent the most to get it passed or not passed. So far it looks like "Big Money" wants the Indian Gaming props to pass, so I will probably vote against it. Plus it sounds like those props put the power of the entire Indian Gaming industry in the hands of the 4 largest tribes.

As it stands right now, many tribes are profiting off of gambling...although many native americans are being disenfranchised by their own people. However, these props look like it will end up disenfranchising most of the native american population in California and send most of them right back into the slums of the reservations.

Good job Arnold. Vote NO on all props that increase taxes or spending.

 

[Edward]

Propositions 94, 95, 96, 97

I can't understand the NO votes on this. I am voting YES on propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 because I do not think it is a proper function of government to limit the number of slot machines that tribes or anyone else runs. As far as I am concerned, they should be allowed to run as many as they want. Voting YES allows four tribes to have at least 5,000 slot machines; voting NO limits them to only 2,000. A YES vote is closer to "as many as they want" than a NO vote, so I'm voting YES.

 

[RonPaulFTW08]

I can't understand the NO votes on this. I am voting YES on propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 because I do not think it is a proper function of government to limit the number of slot machines that tribes or anyone else runs. As far as I am concerned, they should be allowed to run as many as they want. Voting YES allows four tribes to have at least 5,000 slot machines; voting NO limits them to only 2,000. A YES vote is closer to "as many as they want" than a NO vote, so I'm voting YES.

I agree with you completely. Why are we regulating their gambling in the first place?