CA Ballot Measures (Analyzed by CA Republican Assembly)

Proposition 91– Yes (This more firmly dedicates gasoline sales taxes to transportation projects.)

Proposition 92 – No (This is "ballot box budgeting" at its worst. It would irresponsibly reduce community college tuition, regardless of need, while permanently increasing taxpayer subsidies.)

Proposition 93 – No! (This is phony term limits reform designed to keep Democrat leaders in office longer. Whether you support term limits or hate them, this proposition is a fraud and it should be defeated.)

Proposition 94 - Yes (The referendum would ratify the compact with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians. Indian gaming has been terrible for California, but defeating this compact will not solve that problem or improve things in any way. This compact is the best possible deal that taxpayers can get out of the current Legislature. Union thugs oppose this compact because it does not achieve their goal of forcing casino workers to pay union dues without their consent. The issue here is union politics, not Indian gaming.)

Proposition 95 - Yes (The referendum would ratify the compact with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Indian gaming has been terrible for California, but defeating this compact will not solve that problem or improve things in any way. This compact is the best possible deal that taxpayers can get out of the current Legislature. Union thugs oppose this compact because it does not achieve their goal of forcing casino workers to pay union dues without their consent. The issue here is union politics, not Indian gaming.)

Proposition 96 - Yes (The referendum would ratify the compact with the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation. Indian gaming has been terrible for California, but defeating this compact will not solve that problem or improve things in any way. This compact is the best possible deal that taxpayers can get out of the current Legislature. Union thugs oppose this compact because it does not achieve their goal of forcing casino workers to pay union dues without their consent. The issue here is union politics, not Indian gaming.)

Proposition 97 - Yes (The referendum would ratify the compact with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Indian gaming has been terrible for California, but defeating this compact will not solve that problem or improve things in any way. This compact is the best possible deal that taxpayers can get out of the current Legislature. Union thugs oppose this compact because it does not achieve their goal of forcing casino workers to pay union dues without their consent. The issue here is union politics, not Indian gaming.)

I, for one, am getting sick of voting on new gambling measures every single election. Enough is enough already; I’ve decided that I’m voting “no” on every new Indian gaming measure, that includes the ones this year, the year after that, and every year thereafter that these casinos keep forcing us to vote on this.

And yes, I like McClintock; he should be our governor and not that clown we have in there now; but he may be wrong on this one.

These compacts are a power grab by some tribes to punish other tribes for daring to go to the negotiating table. They will simply funnel more money into legislator’s hands, proping up campaigns, and ultimately, make Indian Gaming more of a problem in California’s politics.

If they were good compacts, they could be approved right now by the legislature and the governor; instead, four tribes want special gaming compacts that flaunt the Prop 5 law that required all compacts to be available equally - what deals one tribe got, all tribes could get.

As for more slot machines; nothing prevented the other tribes from getting more slot machines, and paying money to the state - which they have done. So these propositions have nothing to do with making compacts, with more slot machines, simply a power grab, and I urge everyone to say no.

The only ‘bright spot’ that can be seen in these new compacts is that it makes those four tribal lands forbidden to union organizers. It’s not enough.

"How are you voting on these "gambling" measures? "

I was one of a few FReepers that shared thoughts on the gaming measures on Tuesday on the California FReeper board ( http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/profiles?location=53 ). Here's my initial post to that board, and finally my decision, reached when another FReeper clarified my thoughts for me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m almost inclined not to vote on the gambling initiatives. I’m almost willing to accept whatever the majority of Californians decide, but not quite there yet. If I do vote on them, my vote is no.

Back in the eighties, I voted against the state lottery as I don’t like the idea of government owning/operating a business, and especially not one that is a vice. My position is that if there is to be gaming, make it privately owned, and allow counties to determine if they want to participate.

I know Senator McClintock has come out in favor the latest Indian gaming compacts Arnold worked out. McClintock’s position is that he’s fed up with government interfering with business expansion, and the state could use the additional jobs. From my perspective, the same argument could be made for opening more abortion clinics in the state. I can’t buy into rational on this, that if it’s good for business, it’s good for the state.

Two additional factors trouble me. Casino gaming is here in California, and there’s no denying it. Since it is present, regardless of how I feel about it being present, I am opposed to allowing only one segment of the state population to operate the casinos, and particularly troubled as the determining factor of who can be the operators is based on race.

I am also troubled that the tribes that benefit from these compacts had to be coerced into assisting other tribes without casinos. Are they so lacking in compassion for their own that it takes state government to tell them they should assist their own? Isn’t that how general welfare came about?

~~~~~~~~~~~
Another FReeper, edcoil, helped me reach a decision with his response, "I have to agree with you. I vote no. I we passed a law that only white people could be in a business how long would that last?"

Expressly pointing out how wrong it would be to have any business where only people of a particular race could be business owners did the trick.

I'll be voting NO on these propositions.

I'm voting no on all the propositions.

As was mentioned, even the author of 91 says it's no longer needed.

92 creates yet another education bureaucracy without oversight.

93 is an end run around the spirit of current term limits laws.

94-97 is just way to much all at once. Never mind the influence peddling, it doesn't give thought to what such a huge gaming expansion would do to the way of life in Riverside County. If I lived there, I wouldn't want all that foisted on me. So, if I consider nothing else, the Golden Rule would make these a non-starter.

Some members of Indian tribes are being “expelled” from their respective tribes for not being “real Indians”.

L.A. Weekly, a left-wing alternative publication, did a cover story on that issue...After some get expelled from the tribes, the remaining members get more money each month...Also the leadership of the tribes want “more power” and kick out “rivals”.

I saw a TV ad featuring an American Indian, which is against the props...I think I read his name in the LA WEEKLY article as one of people who got “expelled”.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.