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... :rolleyes:

[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]

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?

[zeegrim]

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.


Idem.

[Dan D.]

What is prop 91?

[Tim111977]

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.
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.

[Tim111977]

What is prop 91?

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.

[Eponym_mi]

Are any of these ballot propositions going to appreciably influence voter turnout? I think we want low turnout...except for our supporters.

[Tim111977]

Are any of these ballot propositions going to appreciably influence voter turnout? I think we want low turnout...except for our supporters.

doubt it. None of them really seeem like headline catching things. Most people probably havent paid them much attention.

[Paul4Prez]

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.

[angrydragon]

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.

[paulgirl]

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 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]

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.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.

[microsect]

I'm voting no for all of them!

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

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.

[Ibgamer]

Ive decided to vote yes on the Indian Agreements, and no to everything else. If by adding a couple of slot machines to a couple of casinos brings the states and communities some extra money then Im all for it!

[Richandler]

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.

[JMO]

I am voting No on all of them.

I don't believe that Indian tribes should have a monopoly on gaming.

[dseisner]

I'm voting NO on the indian gaming ones. The government shouldn't be favoring 4 tribes, it doesn't seem like the appropriate role of govt.

[dseisner]

Ive decided to vote yes on the Indian Agreements, and no to everything else. If by adding a couple of slot machines to a couple of casinos brings the states and communities some extra money then Im all for it!

Don't be naive...stop believing the commercials.

[slamhead]

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

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]

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.

[Erazmus]

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

I voted the same on those.

[Wiseburn]

Hotel and Restaurant Unions are asking for the public to reject these props because they don't include "Card Check". It's a dodge to avoid secret ballots on bringing unions into the Indian Casinos.

Read McClintock's blog for more info here:

http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?blog_id=222&frompage=latestblog&domain=tom_mcclintock

91 Yes
92, 93 No
94-97 Yes

Steve

[Golding]

I voted no on everything except 93. I was a fan of the term limit idea.

What are the thoughts against 93, though. I'd like to know.

[firebirdnation]

I voted NO on all of the propositions!

[Cali4RonPaul]

I voted NO on all of the propositions as well!!

[Edward]

I voted no on everything except 93. I was a fan of the term limit idea.

What are the thoughts against 93, though. I'd like to know.The description and ads regarding Prop 93 are very deceptive. If you are a fan of term limits, you should have voted NO.

[Anna Karenina]

I'm voting no on all of them.

I was ambivalent about 94-97 but after reading through the other's opinions here I've decided to go against them. I was also hesitant to help bring extra funds to our state when it needs to learn to cut spending.

[kingfanpaul]

Dont help out any casinos! The gambling drug is a horrible one. I was a dealer inside a california casino (Thunder Valley) for 4 years! These tribes dont need more help, they are rolling in the dough yet they treat their employees like crap. At the time minimum wage was 6.75 an hr but because they are on sovereign land they got away with paying us only 5.15 an hour! They are so cheap. I live right by the casino too ans I see them driving around in their hummers and maserati and it makes me sick.

Most of you probably can gamble and not become an addicted sucker BUT 90% of the people that go to casinos are extremly addicted. I have seen people piss and shit on themselves because they did not want to get up from their "hot" seat to go to the bathroom. I have seen many people stay in the casinos gambling for 7 days straight. They dont stop to sleep or anything. It's really bad but most people on the outside dont see it. I am so glad I quit working in a place like that.

[chowdy]

I abstained :S

[Josh Nielsen]

I voted No on everything except for 92

94-97 is passed restricts natives ever unionizing for workers rights
only some natives gain rights and some left out...and not all of the proceeds are guaranteed to education, which mostly goes to the Prison system

[paulgirl]

I voted no on everything except 93. I was a fan of the term limit idea.

What are the thoughts against 93, though. I'd like to know.

93 includes a "grandfather" loophole to reset the terms of a bunch of politicians in office. It was proposed by Fabian Nunez, who is getting termed out in a few months. If it passes, he and several other slicksters will get MORE time in office. Its a big lie.

Vote NO, if only to get this clown out.

[Caravello]

I voted Yes on term limits. I voted No on the Indian casino things where the gov would get revenues/taxes from the Casinos b/c I want the gov to take the bitter medicine and figure out how to budget itself without relying on casinos. I am probably in the minority on this though.

[The Chef]

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.

Completely agree. Vote No

[Cigaboo]

The main argument for the Indian propositions is to increase state revenue. I say the state has enough money already, and needs to learn how to manage what it has before getting a penny more! So I voted no on the propositions. Why enable more government waste?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Will vote NO on everything but will vote YES for Prop 91 which restricts gas taxes for transportation purposes and not to be loaned to the general fund for other purposes. Our roads are pretty crappy and I am tired of it. I am unsure about prop 93 (term limits).

If anyone can respond within the next hour you can change my vote.


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 but I am voting NO on the gaming props. The gov wants to get more revenue from the tribes to fund big government instead of reducing spending and waste. This will also make California more of a gambling state and I don't want the gov dependent on gambling revenue. Its immoral to me.

[cero]

why is everyone voting no on 92?
whats wrong with community colleges getting more money?

[Karsten]

I love gambling, but I don't see any reason why the tribes should need our permission to do ANYTHING on their OWN land!! The state should not take their revenues, either. So, NO on 94-97!

[Karsten]

why is everyone voting no on 92?
whats wrong with community colleges getting more money?

school sucks

[Golding]

93 includes a "grandfather" loophole to reset the terms of a bunch of politicians in office. It was proposed by Fabian Nunez, who is getting termed out in a few months. If it passes, he and several other slicksters will get MORE time in office. Its a big lie.

Vote NO, if only to get this clown out.Ah, I see. Thanks!

I'm glad to see that 93 didn't pass, then. I guess this just teaches me not to vote for a proposition until I properly understand its finer details.

[Paul4Prez]

Any opinions on Prop 98 and Prop 99 for Tuesday's primary?

They both sound good on the surface -- any hidden catch?