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

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

[StoneColdGOP]

McClintock on the Propositions

I've been getting a lot of calls about the various ballot propositions.

Here's how I see them:

1A. Watered Down Protection for Local Governments. YES, I suppose. Extends limited protection to local governments against future raids by the state AFTER the state finishes ripping off another $2.6 billion over the next two years. I support it because the protections are a slight improvement over existing law, but if you really want to protect local governments, Prop. 65 is the ticket.

59. Public Records, Open Meetings. YES. Louis Brandeis said it best: "Sunlight is the best of disinfectants." Public business should be public.Period.

60. The Right to the Party of Your Choice. YES. This measure guarantees all parties access to the general election ballot, and was written to knock out Prop. 62.

60A. Selling Long-term Assets for Short-term Spending. NO. Sounds good on the surface - sell surplus state property to pay for general fund spending. Here's my problem: when surplus assets are sold - and they should be - the funds should be used for the purpose for which they were raised. For example, Caltrans land was paid for by highway taxes. When it's sold, it should be used to build highways, not pay for this year's welfare increase.

61. Children's Hospitals Bond. NO. Our borrowing is out of control - general fund supported debt is up 54 percent in 14 months. No matter how appealing the purpose, California needs to stop borrowing until it has brought its credit card binge under control.

62. Election Primaries. NO. They call it an "Open Primary," but what this really does is to trade California's primary election system for a two-step general election. The result: the power to determine the official party nominee is taken away from the voters in the primary and returned to backroom political bosses. A giant step backward from clean and open elections.

63. Soak the Rich - And Then Us. NO. An extra tax on those making over $1 million might sound good to the rest of us - but beware. California's taxes are already so disproportionate that the top 1Ú4 of 1 percent of income taxpayers pays nearly one third of all income taxes. It doesn't take many of them re-arranging their affairs to claim residency in Nevada (where there is NO income tax), before there's a dramatic reduction in tax revenues. And guess who they'll tax then?

64. Honest Work for Lawyers. YES. Puts an end to predatory law firms that extort money by filing huge lawsuits against employers for technical violations of law. About time.

65. Real Local Government Protection. YES. A lost cause - the proponents have abandoned this measure in favor of Prop. 1A - but if you believe in protecting local government funds from continued raids by the state, this is the measure that will do so.

66. Weakens Three Strikes Law. NO. Under current law, in order to qualify for a third strike, you have to be convicted TWICE before for VIOLENT felonies. This bill requires the THIRD strike also be a violent felony. Call me prudish, but after a thug has been twice convicted of raping, assaulting and murdered his fellow citizens, I'm out of patience. California's Three Strikes Law works. Don't weaken it.

67. Phone Tax. NO. A half-billion tax increase - about $60 a year for an average family in both direct taxes and tax-driven price increases. Who says talk is cheap?

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.

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.

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.

71. Stem Cell Research. NO. Stem cell research is a promising field, but why are California taxpayers suddenly responsible for funding research for the rest of the world? Worse, any discussion of research data when making research grants is exempt from the Open Meetings Act and the Open Records Act. Want to know what your $3 billion has bought? Sorry, that's confidential.

72. Health Care Coverage. NO. Here's a great idea. Require every business with more than 20 employees to provide health insurance.

My guess: a lot of businesses with between 20 and 40 employees will suddenly have 19 -and an awful lot of folks will be without health care OR jobs. We're from the government and we're here to help.

[StoneColdGOP]

69 and 70 are the ones I have doubts about.

I've heard that if you are suspected by law enforcement, arrested, had your DNA taken and then released, your DNA is STILL on file with law enforcement as having been arrested for a felony, unless you take it upon yourself to be removed.

I don't know how complex that process might be, but it seems to me that if law enforcement makes an arrest in error, they ought to be reponsible for taking an innocent person's DNA out of the felon file.

But that's something I heard. This is one I need to do more research on.

[StoneColdGOP]

68 is now a moot point since the tracks and clubs supporting it have given up in the face of very dismal polling numbers for it.

I was leaning towards yes, but now I'll probably just leave it blank.

Still leaning to yes on 70.

[madison46]

Yes, you can see Tom's contributions from the tribes have gotten him to go for #70; however, I'm tired of the tribes. Time for them to be riegned in. Sent off for my absentee ballot today.

[calcowgirl]

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.

I beg to differ. Under proposition 70, Tribes would pay the Corporate tax rate. Under today's rules, you have backroom deals with no set amounts; that's opportunity for lots of sleazy deals and corruption. Proposition 70 results in the tribes paying MORE, not less to the state, and eliminates the backroom deals. It also would apply to all tribes, not just the tribe promoting the intiative.

That being said, it also expands the type of gambling in California and the length of the franchise to 99 years. I'm not sure that I'm for that, but from the State revenue perspective, it is an improvement over what we have today.

[Lurking Libertarian]

64 is a "must vote YES".

Amen to that.

[calcowgirl]

>>Anyone have some thoughts on this?

Yes. I think your characterization of "being in the back pocket" is libelous and unsubstantiated. He has been consistent in his position of Indian Soverignty; his position on Prop 70 is no different.

Proposition 68 is an attempt by the cardclubs and racetracks to expand to your backdoor. The initiative requires that the tribes pay up -- or else 11 card clubs and five racetracks get the right to build new, giant casinos. Why should the cardclubs get to expand? They should have nothing to do with the issue. When did the voters agree that they would allow gambling in locations other than Indian reservations? The initiative is dishonest by trying to shove this one through as the "fair share" initiative. I agree with Tom... it is outlandish.

[counterpunch]

Still leaning to yes on 70.

I'm a little concerned about the 99-year compact. Isn't 99 years a bit long for any contract? Can they be renegotiated at some point?

[calcowgirl]

Ping.

McClintock view on the Initiatives

[counterpunch]

You make a much better case than Tom did. That is what I was looking for from him which I did not see. I saw only a defense for the gaming tribes which, yes, Tom has been in the back pocket of. They funded his run in the recall election, mostly in an attempt to derail Arnold so that Bustamante (who is even deeper in their back pocket) could win.

I do not trust Tom on this issue, so I need something more than him just acting as their personal advocate.

[counterpunch]

I agree, 64 is a "must vote YES" measure.
But even more importantly, 62 is a "must vote NO" measure.
No, more than that a HELL NO!!

Democrats are trying to further erode free elections and create single-party rule in the general election. If we lose this, then we might as well be in the USSR.

[Rusty0604]

Thanks,this helps a lot

[kingu]

beg to differ. Under proposition 70, Tribes would pay the Corporate tax rate. Under today's rules, you have backroom deals with no set amounts; that's opportunity for lots of sleazy deals and corruption.

Backroom deals? Every compact has to be published, approved by the legislature, and then approved by the secretary of the interior. The negotiations are kept quiet, that's all. There's a reason why the tribes didn't sign compacts with GreyOut aside from the model compacts that were in Prop 5 - he wanted them to put in a share to the state.

Beyond, it's unclear at this time how the courts will rule on 70 - they will most likely rule very similar to the decisions on prop 5, that the compacts still have to be approved by the governor and legislature. But Milanovich wrote the proposition pretty cleverly - if the courts rule against forcing the governor, legislature and federal government from approving the compacts, the 99 year extension and removal of limits on machines continue as separate issues.

This is, from start to finish, bad lawmaking. Vote no on 70 and tell Agua Caliente, San Manuel, Morongo and Santa Ynez to actually show up for negotiations.

[calcowgirl]

McClintock received legal campaign contributions from the tribes. Did he change his longstanding position after receiving those contributions? NO! He has been consistent all along.

Arnold received legal contributions from various sources, including Las Vegas interests, and now opposes both Tribal Gaming issues. Is he in their back pocket? Being a self-described "Milton Friedman" advocate, it is hard to understand why Arnold would oppose the tribes right to conduct business on their sovereign lands.

That said, perhaps discussing the initiatives and their relative merits would be more productive, eh?

[calcowgirl]

>>Yes, you can see Tom's contributions from the tribes have gotten him to go for #70.

His position hasn't changed for years. Your allegations are baseless.

[cmiller623]

Tom McClintock is the best guy out there in State government...he is like Mr. Smith (from the old movie) and would be a great replacement for SenaWhore Boxer. Too bad he isn't running against that witch.

[counterpunch]

I don't see how you could say that regarding Arnold, since he opposes the measure pushed by "Las Vegas interests."

The whole reason I asked in the first place was exactly because I wanted further discussion of the initiatives and their relative merits. My point is that I'm not going to take McClintock's position on these with blind faith.

Discussion of Tom's motives is already a dead issue to me, I only gave my reason for not taking him at face value as background reference. Now I'd like to explore which is the right decision for California, independent of McClintock.

[calcowgirl]

I would like to see the "negotiations" taken out of the equation. Should we allow corporations to start "negotiating" their own tax rate as well?

Prop 70 eliminates the opportunity for preferential treatment of one tribe over another. They all pay the same rate; they all have the same deal. By avoiding the possibility for preferential treatment, you avoid an opportunity for corruption as well.

[calcowgirl]

The whole reason I asked in the first place was exactly because I wanted further discussion of the initiatives and their relative merits. My point is that I'm not going to take McClintock's position on these with blind faith.

IMO, your first post (snip below) does not look like a comment from someone wanting to only discuss the merits of the issue. It looks like someone taking baseless, libelous swipes at one of the good guys.

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 don't see how you could say that regarding Arnold, since he opposes the measure pushed by "Las Vegas interests."

California tribal gaming does compete with businesses in Las Vegas, Nevada. The owners of those businesses is who I was referring to, not the card-clubs and racetracks, which also have Las Vegas backing.

[StoneColdGOP]

They funded his run in the recall election, mostly in an attempt to derail Arnold so that Bustamante (who is even deeper in their back pocket) could win.

Yeah, yeah... Everyone out to get Arnold. Like nobody else spreads their money around.

[kingu]

My point, which I didn't make clear enough, was that no matter what propositions are put on the ballot, the negotiations still legally take place. But let's say you got an iron clad proposition - there is still the final hurdle of the Secretary of the Interior who has to sign off on each deal.

That was the downfall of Prop 5, and why Davis was able to snag a couple concessions. The only things that don't have to be signed off on for Prop 70 are the 99 year extension and the lack of limits on the number of machines.