Propositions for California
- Thread starter zeegrim
- Start date
Yeah I am voting yes on those too. Im hoping they are a small step towards gambling being legal statewide. Im really quite sick of the government legislating morality.
yeah a clear explanation of this would be nice. It has something to do with gas tax and general funds but I'm not quite sure whats up with it. If you read the booklet where it has arguements for and against the PRO argument tells you to vote no and CON says theres no argument listed. Its really quite screwed up.
doubt it. None of them really seeem like headline catching things. Most people probably havent paid them much attention.
I voted yes on the Indian gambling agreements. The tribes involved negotiated the deal with the state of California, so if they're okay with it, I'm okay with it. The state gets more money, and it's not coming from the taxpayers, so it looks like a win-win on the surface. Hopefully it will help keep them from raising taxes or borrowing more, but I guess that's wishful thinking.
I also voted yes on 91. It sounded like it would keep transportation funds out of the general fund, but I guess the backers aren't even backing it any more, so it won't pass anyway. I voted no on the others.
I also voted yes on 91. It sounded like it would keep transportation funds out of the general fund, but I guess the backers aren't even backing it any more, so it won't pass anyway. I voted no on the others.
angrydragon
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,263
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/prop-initiative-state-1960880-senate-years
Ballot recommendations
Our picks for the Feb. 5 ballot
An Orange County Register editorial
Comments 0 | Recommended3
Here is the short form of our recommendations on California initiatives.
Prop. 91.Transportation funds. The passage of Prop. 1A in November 2006 makes this initiative unnecessary. Vote No.
Prop. 92.Community colleges funding. This initiative sets up mandatory funding levels for community colleges, akin to Prop. 98. These rigid formulas limit the state's flexibility. If every interest group locks up a permanent, untouchable revenue stream, legislators will have few choices in balancing the state budget. Vote No.
Prop. 93.Term limits. This initiative was shaped to serve the Assembly and Senate leaders. It should have been tied to a redistricting initiative, which would have made elections more open and competitive. The proposition would reduce the cumulative time a person may serve in the Legislature to 12 years from 14 years, as the TV ads tout. But, the proposition also would allow all 12 years to be served either in the Assembly or Senate, considerably longer than the current six-year limit in the Assembly and eight-year limit in the Senate. Vote No.
Props. 94-97.The four propositions amount to a high-stakes battle among various gambling interests that are trying to use the regulatory process, rather than the free market, to increase their profits. No overriding philosophical point arose for our Editorial Board on these measures. In a free-market world, the state would not impose an ethnically based monopoly on gambling casinos, and the state's voters would have nothing to say about how many slot machines any such business could offer. No Position.
Ballot recommendations
Our picks for the Feb. 5 ballot
An Orange County Register editorial
Comments 0 | Recommended3
Here is the short form of our recommendations on California initiatives.
Prop. 91.Transportation funds. The passage of Prop. 1A in November 2006 makes this initiative unnecessary. Vote No.
Prop. 92.Community colleges funding. This initiative sets up mandatory funding levels for community colleges, akin to Prop. 98. These rigid formulas limit the state's flexibility. If every interest group locks up a permanent, untouchable revenue stream, legislators will have few choices in balancing the state budget. Vote No.
Prop. 93.Term limits. This initiative was shaped to serve the Assembly and Senate leaders. It should have been tied to a redistricting initiative, which would have made elections more open and competitive. The proposition would reduce the cumulative time a person may serve in the Legislature to 12 years from 14 years, as the TV ads tout. But, the proposition also would allow all 12 years to be served either in the Assembly or Senate, considerably longer than the current six-year limit in the Assembly and eight-year limit in the Senate. Vote No.
Props. 94-97.The four propositions amount to a high-stakes battle among various gambling interests that are trying to use the regulatory process, rather than the free market, to increase their profits. No overriding philosophical point arose for our Editorial Board on these measures. In a free-market world, the state would not impose an ethnically based monopoly on gambling casinos, and the state's voters would have nothing to say about how many slot machines any such business could offer. No Position.
I don't think that this is the proper way to think about it, because a yes vote is a vote more more government control of competition. It might be different if it would allow anyone who met certain requirements to have the additional slots. However, it only applies to the people who made the backroom deal, effectively with the hope of putting all of the other casinos out of business. Trust me, there is a reason why these casino owners are wanting to fork over more of their $$ to the government. So the net result is more money for a few people, but probably less casinos overall.
This is like if the government said only gas stations owned by Shell or Mobil can build new gas pumps, and we will take a share of the larger profits. The mom and pop gas station down the road would likely go out of business.
I personally don't agree with the concept of Indian gaming anyway, it is already a monopoly. But this just makes it worse. Gambling should either be flat out legal or flat out illegal for everyone in each particular state.
Edward
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,115
How is voting to allow four tribes to have more slot machines a vote for more government control of competition? In my opinion, voting against the proposition would stifle competition in that it would allow the two wealthy tribes opposing it to maintain their advantage.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,486
I agree. From the start, the Indian gaming thing has been about government sponsored monopoly, favoritism and collectivism. These agreements (propositions) just cement the control. It's all anti-competitive. Vote No.
The gas station analogy is a good one. But I don't know of any mom and pop gas stations any more. Maybe in rural areas? In California, the big oil conglomerates own (or franchise) the vast majority of gas stations. Totally a government sponsored monopoly.
Richandler
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,763
I'm voting NO on all of them too and I think I'm going to keep that position in upcoming elections. I encourage everyone else to vote NO on everything too. If you are real Ron Paul Republican the stand needs to come now against big government.
NO on
Prop 91 is already a law. They want to put it in the constitution, but we all should know that isn't what a constitution is for.
NO on
Prop 92 is the same as 91 but worse. It wants to put failing community colleges into the constitution. I go to one and I think it's out rageous. The unit cost is not an issue for students quality of education and less fascism with books is. This will also create more debt that CA can't afford.
NO on
Prop 93 is just stupid. Limits in office shouldn't matter. If someone is doing a good job they can stay, if they are doing a bad job we should be voting them out. We already have term limits anyway.
NO on
Props 94-97 Are simply measure for the legislature to make a quick buck with a $14 billion overbudget balance. I will not let them bail themselves out like that. California needs to learn to be conserative with its spending if it doesn't want to bankrupt itself in the future. The money is still coming from tax payers and it will not increase any likelihood of future legalization of gambling.
NO on
Prop 91 is already a law. They want to put it in the constitution, but we all should know that isn't what a constitution is for.
NO on
Prop 92 is the same as 91 but worse. It wants to put failing community colleges into the constitution. I go to one and I think it's out rageous. The unit cost is not an issue for students quality of education and less fascism with books is. This will also create more debt that CA can't afford.
NO on
Prop 93 is just stupid. Limits in office shouldn't matter. If someone is doing a good job they can stay, if they are doing a bad job we should be voting them out. We already have term limits anyway.
NO on
Props 94-97 Are simply measure for the legislature to make a quick buck with a $14 billion overbudget balance. I will not let them bail themselves out like that. California needs to learn to be conserative with its spending if it doesn't want to bankrupt itself in the future. The money is still coming from tax payers and it will not increase any likelihood of future legalization of gambling.
Last edited:
Don't be naive...stop believing the commercials.
slamhead
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,256
I agree..I am voting no on the indian gaming items as the commercials they ran pissed me off. Tied the revenue to balancing the budget. I yelled at my TV to cut spending to balance the budget. Arnold is another McCain...more liberal than Grey Davis whom we threw out over the same issue.
California legislature is entrenched with socialists. Don't let your state get this bad. It is hard to get rid of them when they get so entrenched.
Malum Prohibitum
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 328
I voted yes on 91 - anything that chases money out of HOV lanes and trains and puts money back into roads is a step in the right direction.
I also voted yes on 92. The ideal solution is totally free markets in education. We dont have this. The next best solution is one in which the state essentially provides the service. (cops, roads, public schools) Of course the service sucks, but at least government employees are remotely held accountable for their actions. The worst case scenario is when the govt subsidizes something and regulates it and awards special contracts to political donors who make billions and rape the consumers (think our current healthcare crisis, most higher education systems, or privately run prisons which are 20x worse than state prisons, if that is even possible, or BLACKWATER). California has essentially a socialized junior college system, which is one of the best in the country. Im in favor of maintaining it like that until we can get the state out of it completely.
I voted no on 93 - I dont want those shitheels to spend one more day in the house of representatives. The more turnover the better.
I also voted no on 94-97. There is absolutely no reason that indian tribes should have a monopoly on gaming in california. Im in favor of dismantling that system, not growing it.
I also voted yes on 92. The ideal solution is totally free markets in education. We dont have this. The next best solution is one in which the state essentially provides the service. (cops, roads, public schools) Of course the service sucks, but at least government employees are remotely held accountable for their actions. The worst case scenario is when the govt subsidizes something and regulates it and awards special contracts to political donors who make billions and rape the consumers (think our current healthcare crisis, most higher education systems, or privately run prisons which are 20x worse than state prisons, if that is even possible, or BLACKWATER). California has essentially a socialized junior college system, which is one of the best in the country. Im in favor of maintaining it like that until we can get the state out of it completely.
I voted no on 93 - I dont want those shitheels to spend one more day in the house of representatives. The more turnover the better.
I also voted no on 94-97. There is absolutely no reason that indian tribes should have a monopoly on gaming in california. Im in favor of dismantling that system, not growing it.
Last edited:
Erazmus
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,047
I voted the same on those.
Similar threads
