Voting with Rational (#1: Prop. 68)

Preface: Before the November election, there will be many advertisements regarding propositions, and candidates for various offices. This is my forum to tell you of my views. I encourage you, whether you agree or disagree, to comment on what I have to say. This is what the political process is about: choosing what is best for our city, county, state, and country. These choices should never be made blindly and, therefore, I will present links for places where you can research other points of view.

Topic #1: California Proposition #68

The full text of the proposition is too long, and the official summary can be confusing, so here's my summary in normal language:
Proposition 68 will limit new tribal gaming, however, it will require tribal casinos to pay 25% of their gaming revenues to a government fund. If tribes do not accept terms within 90 days, the proposition will then allow 16 specific non-tribal casino companies to build their casinos and force them to pay 33% of their revenues to fund public safety, regulatory, and social programs. The measure also provides a future clause which will exempt these casinos from future increases.
So how will this measure affect California's budget? The California Director of Finance and a Legislative Analyst estimate revenues of likely over $1 billion annually(that means our state would bring in $1,000,000,000 more dollars a year. That's a nice check to take home.). And these funds would be used primarily for additional firefighting, police, and child protective services.
It seems like a great proposition to me. The state gets money from the casino's revenues. What downsides could there be?
According to the "stop68" website, "Prop. 68 would authorize the big corporate gambling interests bankrolling the measure (racetrack and card club owners like Hustler Magazine’s Larry Flynt) to operate Las Vegas-size casinos with 30,000 slot machines in our cities and suburbs—near 200 schools and traffic congested streets and freeways."
So in other words, they don't want any kind of economic stimuli near their schools, cities, and suburbs because their streets and freeways are already traffic congested. They even go on to claim that Californians will have to bear 400,000 more freeway car trips. However, that Wal Mart Super-center, or that new strip mall, or that new shopping center; they are obviously exempt from this worry. The rational against 68 has even more holes in it, and enough deception that I wonder why they call the proposition the "deceptive gambling proposition," and not their own site as the deception.
The site has provided a map which shows exactly where the new casinos would be going. Unfortunately, they have struck a chord with many voters where this measure wouldn't even apply. For example, they have been advertising heavily in San Diego. Why? Because we've got a huge population to vote against the proposition, even though it will barely affect us. The only casino on the map in San Diego county is in Oceanside. Interestingly enough, they HAVE made the attempt of making it look like the casino will go right next to a recreation park. While it would be about two blocks away from a park, the recreation park drawn on the map that looks so large isn't a normal park. It's a golf course, ironically called "Center City Golf Course", despite it's location at the north most end of San Diego County. Nonetheless, a golf course. A privately owned golf course. So in other words, their argument is "we favor this private business over your private business. They don't provide money for the state. But we like them better. They look nice. They maintain their greens. Really well actually. I saw them mowing earlier." Yet, I digress in sarcasm, so what else is new.
I noticed in their arguments that they mention Larry Flynt a lot. I guess it's a great way to mention someone who wives will see as an immoral, disgusting sleezeball; someone who husbands see as a godsend, yet will still publicly despise. I guess the more times they mentioned his name, the more it got the message out. The phrase "racetrack and card club owners like Hustler Magazine’s Larry Flynt" appears 3 times on the site, and Larry Flynt's name is on 17 different pages bringing his name total to over 50 times mentioned. They even go so far as to call the measure the "Flynt Gambling Proposition." They base this claim off of his introduction of the concept as a part of his gubernatorial campaign. So, in other words, we should vote against this measure because we don't want to have a womanizer from the entertainment business taking control of our state. Good thing we avoided that crisis.
The last point I'd like to bring up on the negative's side is how they play the quoting game. "As the San Francisco Chronicle reports (5/11/04): Prop. 68 means 'California will quickly surpass Nevada as the nation's top gambling state.'" Would that necessarily be a bad thing? California's economy is strong, the 5th largest in the world, so why do we have such an unbalanced budget? Wouldn't more money in the state's treasury be, dare I say, GOOD for the state? If we surpass Nevada as the nation's top gambling state, what will that mean? We might have a lower sales tax. Or even no sales tax. Nevada's casinos are so strong and bring in so much money that they don't have a sales tax in their state. None. Zilch. We Californians, of course, pay around 7.75% and 8.5%, depending on where we live in the state. I'd rather have lower taxes. Wouldn't you?
To be fair, I went to the "Yes on 68" site. It has its quarks, and some were just annoying, but these were only the matter of bad web design, not content based. The site just provides a lot of numbers with no real context. Which is unfortunate because the other site is very well designed.

The reality is this: make sure you know who you're getting your information from. The pro-68 side says that they are supported by horse racing and card clubs, and the con-68 side say that they are "A Coalition of Indian Gaming Tribes, with major funding by United Auburn Indian Community and Pala Band of Mission Indians." Obviously, both sides have a vested interest in your vote, one way or the other. The Indians don't want competition, and the "Larry Flynts"(sorry, couldn't resist) want to make money in California.
The difference between the two options is that as a voter, you can't say that you want more funding for schools, firefighters, police, and social services, but you're turning this opportunity away. It's not the best solution to get more money into the government, or to these services, but it is one way, and it's actually being presented. The only other way that the Governor is providing budgetary relief is through cuts. Here's a way to get more money for the government where nothing is cut and everything is gained.
Yes, there will be more traffic. But there's traffic everywhere you go. And these casinos won't add a noticeable amount on a local level. And here's the bottom line: 68 could mean less taxes eventually while stimulating the economy in a positive way. Unless you have a gambling problem. Then you'd be screwed.
Those are my thoughts, what are yours?

Get Your Own Info:

Click Here For Non-Partisian Voter Information With Links to Biased Sites

IT'S YOUR VOTE. MAKE IT COUNT!