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.

[NormsRevenge]

me? intentionally rile folks here. chuckle chuckle ...

I'm shocked , am I that transparent or do you feel that vulnerable?

FR stops being as much fun election years and here we have had 2 e;lection years back to back in California.. Onto 2005 ;-)

[counterpunch]

That is insane!

Yes on 59 - Let sunshine into government.
Yes on 60 - This should prevent a New Jersey switcheroo, as well as prevent single-party rule as attempted by 62.
Yes on 64 - Keep Jesse Jackson out of California.

No on 70 - 99 years is too long for a non-negotiable exclusive contract for the state to enter into.

[counterpunch]

Why do some here forget we live in a land of free speech? Must we always be insulted for having contrary positions?
aRnie has thick skin, maybe some of his supporters should grow some too. ;-)

The same could be said for McClintock supporters...
Though I don't know if his skin is that thick, his skull certainly is, as well is his brow. ;-)

[hattend]

That is insane!

I'm just the messenger...I live (and vote) in Alaska.

But y'all do the right thing as I own a house in Redding, CA and I will be moving back there in 2007.

[NormsRevenge]

Even TomBot needs love and affection, we're not all mindless , indulgent folk like aRnie supporters. ;-)

If I wasn't the suspicious type, I'm sure I'd love to jump in the hot tub with aRnie and the Kennedys and Shrivers too,, except for Mad Teddy and Wild Bill the doc... but that's me. lol :-)

[counterpunch]

If I wasn't the suspicious type, I'm sure I'd love to jump in the hot tub with aRnie and the Kennedys and Shrivers too,, except for Mad Teddy and Wild Bill the doc... but that's me. lol :-)

McClintock supporters generally avoid tubs altogether..
;-D

[calcowgirl]

I suggest you start to do some research and cut the baseless allegations.

Proposition 70 is supported by many Republicans and anti-tax organizations, including Jon Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Tax Foundation, Lew Uhler and the National Tax Limitation Committee, State Senator Jim Brulte (R), State Senator Tom McClintock (R), State Senator Bill Morrow (R).

Are you going to accuse all of these people of being 'on the take'?

[calcowgirl]

And the Proposition 70 argument is all about Arnold holding exclusive power and control

"The governor is going to spend a significant amount of time making sure Californians understand how bad (Propositions) 68 and 70 are for the state," Harris said.

"You'd rather have the governor on your side than against," Russo said. "But the Howard Jarvis organization said it quite well. They've supported the governor on everything he's done. But on this one particular instance, he's wrong."

The governor has reached compact agreements with a half-dozen tribes that currently run casinos. Forty-seven other gaming tribes have not. But Schwarzenegger argues that he should retain the right to negotiate future deals -- a right that Propositions 68 and 70 would take away.

Source

[NormsRevenge]

Bump..

[kingu]

Why do you think that tribes should be 'taxed' at a higher rate than a corporation in the state of California?

Name one company in California which doesn't have to also pay federal taxes. State taxes are in addition to the burden put on companies by the federal government.

This 'tax' is not on the tribes, it is on the tribally owned gambling operations. It doesn't even include all the other enterprises; gas stations, cigarette stores, outlet malls.

I can't imagine any company in California that would not like to just pay state corporate taxes. I'm sure the race tracks and card clubs would love such a deal as well.

We elect people to do their job. That is what they're doing. That's the governor, the legislature, and the executive branch of the federal government. We don't let special interests go in and basically write their own deal and try to shove it down everyone's throats, fully knowing that in the end, they won't have to sign any compacts ever again. Unlimited gaming on trust land will be the rule, compacts will last at least a century.

[NormsRevenge]

so indians don't deserve any breaks? fine.. they never got any before when we took their land.

We don't let special interests go in and basically write their own deal and try to shove it down everyone's throats,

aRnie&his elite backers is a special interest, a big GReen socialist one,,and indians are just the start..

[kingu]

The only involvement of the Secretary of the Interior would be when a tribe requests that new land be considered to be put in trust.

Incorrect. All contracts of this nature between a state and a federally recognized tribe must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and then published in the federal register. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior may make recommendations on lands being accepted into trust, but it is congress that actually has the power of approval or disapproval.

The framework for gaming on reservations is outlined and ruled by the IGRA, a federal law governing activities on federal trust land. Another controlling issue would be the fact that rancherias in California are PL209 which further governs dealings between the state and the tribes.

[kingu]

so indians don't deserve any breaks? fine.. they never got any before when we took their land.

I'm not familiar with any of the more than five hundred recognized tribes that had a concept of owning land. We didn't take their land, we made them follow our rules of land ownership. But forget that; it pales in comparison to what we did later. We took their children, forced them to go to Indian schools where they were forbidden contact with their family. We forbid them their religion. We forbid them their religion and culture. And those were the lucky ones.. Others were forced into adoptions by non-Indian families. Or they were outright killed.

Here in California, bounties for killing American Indian men and women existed into the 1900's. People were paid by the state for every Indian they killed. My grandmother is proud that she was finally allowed to become a citizen, empowered with the ability to vote... after the first world war.

Yeah, the Indians got shafted. And unlike the African Americans who whine about slavery, there are still people alive today who remember, experienced, these things. It wasn't until the 1970's when American Indians were permitted to practice their traditional religions.

Finally, things are equalizing. But equalization means equalization -- there's not one tribe in California that has a casino that needs to go for new compacts. They have them already. The only reason why they would need new compacts is for the expansion of Indian gaming beyond the limits already in place under existing compacts.

A state proposition can't overrule the existing compacts, they can't cancel out a federally governed agreement. A majority of the tribes know that they impact the state, and unlike every other company in the United States, they aren't paying federal taxes that come back to the state in the form of highway funds, law enforcement supplements, health assistance.

The fifteen percent number was an agreement between the tribes and the governor, and unlike state companies, they were able to direct those funds at the start in particular directions that will directly help them. They're good deals for the state, because they help reduce the impact of Indian gaming, and they're good deals for the tribes, because they get the roads and infrastructure that they need on lands outside of their reservations.

[NormsRevenge]

I had to check your profile to figure out where ya get yur verbosity gene from.. ;-)

If nothing else, the state owes it to itself and the indians to be gracious as it reaps a bounty that it is not necessarily worthy of nor can be relied on to spend said bounty responsibly.

circles my wagons ,, sharpens some more arrows.

[kingu]

If nothing else, the state owes it to itself and the indians to be gracious as it reaps a bounty that it is not necessarily worthy of nor can be relied on to spend said bounty responsibly.

Having spoken with those who were in the compact negotiations, it was a rather mellow experience. Both sides came to the table with particular goals, each came away with most of what they wanted. It was also remarkable that both sides actually listened to the desires of the counties and nearby municipalities, and both made concessions towards the third party goals as well.

One must remember that many of these folks have been virtually brainwashed by the liberals and as they expand in business, they are learning just how destructive those liberals can be. No, mentioning Arnold Schwarzenegger's name doesn't make a chairman (or woman) cringe; not when compared to the word 'union.'

circles my wagons ,, sharpens some more arrows.

Bah, so 1800's. Today, they'll drive their hummers over the wagons and show off their new lever-action 45-70. (Boy do those suckers have a kick..)

[calcowgirl]

Thanks for clarifying. I had read IGRA before, but didn't recall the DOI approval step.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are arguing for, or against.
Does it have to do with one of the following, or?

-Increase in scope (roulette, etc.)
-Length of compact (99 year)
-Payment of corporate tax rate on revenue
-Severability of issues if found unconstitutional
-Application of Prop 70 legislation to previously negotiated compacts
-Indian monopoly in California

From what I read of Prop 70, it would standardize the compact language which would allow all tribes to get the same 'deal' when executing compacts with the state. Why shouldn't they all have to play out of the same rulebook? Is it the specific rules laid out by the A.C. tribe that you object to? If so, which one?

[kingu]

Prop 70 is wrong for the following reasons:

No tribe need to enter into the new compact unless they intend on having more than two thousand slot machines. Because of the rural locations, and the limitations of the size of land, more than two thirds of the tribes in the state would never need to enter into these new compacts.

No state proposition can compel action by the federal government. It is a major opening for attack against portions of the proposition, and my supposition is that it was purposely written that way.

The compelling of action by both the governor and the state legislature is on shaky ground, and again, another large opening for challenge.

The 'corporate tax' rate is flawed. Any state company pays both federal and state taxes on income, and most of the federal taxes returns to the state in the form of grants and subsidies. It places the tribes at a huge advantage at the outset, and still only partially covers the costs to the state, counties and communities for Indian gaming.

The monopoly issue is completely unrelated. Modifying the state constitution to permit different forms of gaming is open to both the legislature and the people. Of course, if any form of any type of gaming is permitted within the state, the tribes may engage in that form of gaming on trust land without compact or limitations on size, aside from their own borders. This is the heart of the Cabazon decision that sparked the IGRA.

Prop 70 sidesteps the legislative and executive spheres of power, steps on the federal government's responsibilities, and delivers minimal returns. Beyond, it is not needed for standardization. Already all tribes are being offered the same (or materially similar) deals by Schwarzenegger, though holdout tribes refuse to even enter into negotiations.

It's bad legislation written by the tribes which they wrongly assumed the electorate would flock to. They forgot that they're no longer 'poor Indians' The people don't seem to think that they need to be automatically granted more than 2000 slot machine licenses. They've noticed how their roads are being worn, how their emergency services are being stressed. They're also satisfied that their elected government is negotiating for them, rather than a few tribes dictating the terms of the deal.

I hope this makes my position more clear. And if none of this convinces you, just think of all the millions that the state won't have to spend defending this proposition from card clubs, race tracks, and the tribes themselves.

[NormsRevenge]

Bump

[tophat9000]

bump for later

[Seadog Bytes]

RE: "...would be a great replacement for SenaWhore Boxer. Too bad he isn't running against that witch."

...sigh.