Replies

The propositions do more than simply add 17,000 slot machines. They increase the percentage of revenue that the state gets from the casinos. While that increased revenue will not balance the budget, it will help until we get a Republican majority in the state senate to reduce spending.

The opposition to the measures is being paid for by the casino owners in Las Vegas.

I also agree that casinos should be allowed across the state and not just on reservation property but that proposition has failed miserably several times and has no hope for passing.

When the county of Santa Barbara and city of Solvang granted the Chumash Indians land for a reservation, they gave them the worst possible land, literally in a ditch. The Chumash have turned that ditch into the most valuable land in the area and are attempting to buy adjoining property to expand their reservation. The cities in that area benefit from the generosity and lavish donations by the Chumash to local charities yet they distrust their desire for additional land.

The propositions do more than simply add 17,000 slot machines. They increase the percentage of revenue that the state gets from the casinos. While that increased revenue will not balance the budget, it will help until we get a Republican majority in the state senate to reduce spending.

The opposition to the measures is being paid for by the casino owners in Las Vegas.

The problem for me is that the numbers for how much money the state would get come from an analyst hired by the tribes who would benefit. He says he can't disclose the data that he used to arrive at those figures because they came from the tribes and are 'proprietary'. If they can't be upfront when they're trying to push this measure, I'm not going to trust them to honestly report their revenue when it comes time to pay the state.

I'd be more in favor of legalizing casinos in general, not just for Indians, and subjecting them to state regulation, taxation, and oversight.

While that increased revenue will not balance the budget, it will help until we get a Republican majority in the state senate to reduce spending.

The increased revenue is miniscule. When you are talking about a budget of $140,000,000,000.00, $200 million hardly makes a dent (only 0.14%). That's like trying solve your $10.000.00 credit card problem with $14.00.

The opposition to the measures is being paid for by the casino owners in Las Vegas.

Where did you see that? I've heard the opposite. None of the LV gaming interests are listed as donors to the groups opposing the initiatives (lots of California racetracks have donated as they'd like to be allowed to operate slots, too). LV gaming interests WANT this to pass as they get to expand in California--threefold!

until we get a Republican majority in the state senate to reduce spending.

Not necessary. We simply need a governor who will support the Republican minority in the state senate to reduce the spending.