California: Nov. 2004 state ballot propositions analysis by Sen. McClintock

Tom McClintock ^ | 10-4-04 | Senator Tom McClintock

[StoneColdGOP]

Great insights from Tom McClintock.

[kellynla]

Thanks for posting...
saves me some time from plowing through 160 pages of verrrry small print! LOL

[backtothestreets]

His opinions count with me.

[madison46]

Except for 70, I'll vote tht way

[StoneColdGOP]

No problem.

Tom's takes on some of these differ very little from what most Republicans would instinctively think, but he offers a well thought out answer to the problems.

Those who appreciate insight and deliberation on the issues will find it useful.

[telebob]

That's what I've got on my scorecard, too.

[So Cal Rocket]

My take, after reading all 160 pages, plus the supplemental:

Prop 1A: Local Gov't Revenue Protection - YES
Prop 59: Open Meetings - YES
Prop 60: Rights of Political Parties - YES
Prop 60A: Surplus Property - YES
Prop 61: Children's Hospital Bonds - NO
Prop 62: Louisiana Style Primaries - NO
Prop 63: Millionaire Tax - NO
Prop 64: End Shakedown Lawsuits - YES
Prop 65: Local Gov't Revenue Protection - YES
Prop 66: Ease 3 Strikes Law - NO
Prop 67: Phone Tax - NO
Prop 68: 25% tax on Indian Gaming - YES
Prop 69: Collect DNA - NO
Prop 70: Exclusive Indian Gaming - NO
Prop 71: State Funding for Stem Cell Research - NO
Prop 72: Mandated Healthcare Coverage - NO

[markman46]

I voted no on all but 59..

[So Cal Rocket]

64 is a "must vote YES".

[afnamvet]

Same for me.

[Squeako]

His opinions count with me.

No doubt. It's such a bummer that Republicans bailed on him for Arnold; I guess everyone wants to rub elbows with the stars.

[QQQQQ]

I agree with you on most, except a couple:

Prop 65: Local Gov't Revenue Protection - YES
Prop 68: 25% tax on Indian Gaming - YES

====

You may want to take another look.

Prop. 65 says you have to have voter approval to reduce local revenues, I think. I am voting NO. Prop 1A is what Arnold and the local governments agreed to.

Prop. 68 is bad, because first of all the 25% wouldn't go to the state, it would go to local taxes, who would fritter it away, and the state couldn't tax them on top of that, and if they won't pay it, others could put up casinos all over the place, which I personally don't really object to, but I don't like the way it's written. I am voting NO on this.

[Right Cal Gal]

Print out and take to polls on election day. His analysis is always thoughtful and well researched.

We lost a lot when the idiotarians in California failed to make this man governor.

[So Cal Rocket]

Re 1A: What's wrong with asking permission from the citizens of the state before they take tax receipts away from their local government to pay for more state-wide boondoggles?

Re 68: I would rather the money be in local Government's hands than the Socialists in the California State Legislature.

My positions on both initiatives are based on my perception that local government is a better steward of our tax money than the state government. Furthermore, if the PTB in the local government don't spend it wisely, it's a lot easier to fire them and get new folks in there than it is on the state level.

[So Cal Rocket]

Corrected:

Re 1A65: What's wrong with asking permission from the citizens of the state before they take tax receipts away from their local government to pay for more state-wide boondoggles?

Re 68: I would rather the money be in local Government's hands than the Socialists in the California State Legislature.

My positions on both initiatives are based on my perception that local government is a better steward of our tax money than the state government. Furthermore, if the PTB in the local government don't spend it wisely, it's a lot easier to fire them and get new folks in there than it is on the state level.

[QQQQQ]

I agree with you in principle, but Los Angeles county was telling us how they don't have money for police, then they found some $300M, which then they mostly spent on increasing salaries of the gov employees.

CA STATE is in a fiscal crisis right now, and we'll all be in trouble, if they can't get out of it.

[kingu]

70. De-politicize Tribal Gaming. YES. Provides a standard gaming compact for any legitimate Indian tribe that asks for it, assessing the corporate tax rate while restoring a free market to operations on Indian land. It would remove gaming from the tortured political environment that now has pitted tribe against tribe in winning monopoly franchises. A standardized system is the best protection against the unjust political favoritism that we're seeing today.

Damn, Tom, when did you go off the deep end.. Ahh, yes, those contributions from the tribes that never mean anything to you. Newsflash Tom: Every compact negotiated by Arnold gives much better terms to the state than this does. The only favoritism involved is you bending over for Milanovich and his cronies. Not even Viejas could stomach this power grab.

[kingu]

69. DNA Samples. YES. Requires DNA samples to be taken from all felons and criminal suspects. It means that violent crimes will become much easier to solve - and with far greater certainty than ever before. It will give "Cold Case Files" lots of new material.

Used to be, I thought that Tom was a conservative. But geeze; wholesale throwing out of a person's right of privacy? No court order, nothing - just have to have a cop suspect you of a crime and your DNA goes into a national database. What's next, having us all line up to give DNA samples to get a driver's license?

[counterpunch]

68. Casino Grande. NO. I don't believe it's any of government's business how grown-ups chose to spend their time and money as long as they're not hurting anyone. But I object to the extortionate provisions of the measure that would force Indian tribes to accept outlandish conditions or face financial ruin.

I do wonder about this one. If Tom said he does support limiting how adults spend their money, or say he thinks gambling is immoral or a tax on the poor or say that expanding gambling beyond tribes would turn California into the new Sodom and Gomorrah, then I could at least accept his position as honest, then judge the merits of it from there.

But Tom makes no case other than saying it "forces outlandish conditions" on tribal casinos (and in the same breath makes a case against his own position with a qualifier). these conditions I believe have to do with them "paying their fair share". There are valid points to make for both sides of this issue, but since Tom was in the Indian Gambling back pocket in his spoiler run against Arnold, I just don't know that he has any credibilty on this issue. He might just be looking for some more payback funding for his 2006 run.

I'd like to see more discussion on this issue without the influence of Indian Gaming money pulling the puppet strings. Anyone have some thoughts on this?

[counterpunch]

69. DNA Samples. YES. Requires DNA samples to be taken from all felons and criminal suspects. It means that violent crimes will become much easier to solve - and with far greater certainty than ever before. It will give "Cold Case Files" lots of new material.

I agree. The "criminal suspects" part is dubious. What's next, include "persons of interest"?