Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives [Archive]

BarTopDancer

01-30-2008, 04:13 PM

From what I understand (and I could be wrong), the money that comes in from the increased revenue will go to the state AND the poorer tribes. The only people with the big issue are some Vegas Casino owners.

The one I need to do more research on is the community college fees. Gray Davis doubled them, and they have gone up and down since. I need to see how they can lower the costs without raising taxes (and hitting other programs since the state subsidizes the fees).

innerSpaceman

01-30-2008, 04:18 PM

Ever since I drove out to Palm Springs and past the Morongo Resort (is that the one?) with GIANT ROOFTOP DISPLAYS BEGGING FOR PASSAGE OF THOSE INITIATIVES, I've been suspicous of them.

Who knows the deal?* Because unless I find out something concretely positive about them, I'm voting against them. Claims that they will send millions into the state coffers sound like pure spin to me.

*(Not intended as a casino pun)

Morrigoon

01-30-2008, 04:25 PM

Agreed. And if they're going to willingly (claim to) toss millions of dollars into State coffers, then what are they getting in return? Makes me terribly suspicious.

Alex

01-30-2008, 04:29 PM

91 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_91_%282008%29) - Voted no. I don't support sequestering revenues into lockboxed uses. For good or ill we should rely on the legislature to disburse incomes as they see fit. Inidivual lockboxes always sound like a grand idea but ultimately the mass of them end up creating problems.

92 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_92_%282008%29) - Voted no. Again tries to create mandatory spending and lockboxes. Also, this is a setting of priorities that should be handled legislatively.

93 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_93_%282008%29) - Voted no. I don't support term limits. If the people want to elect the same person to an office for 203 years, even if that person lives out of the jurisdiction and is 12 years old and hates all ethnic minorities, then they should be allowed to do so. Protecting an electorate from a pre-conceived notion of "stupidity" isn't a good idea in my opinion. So, this initiative tweaks with the specifics of term limits and ultimately might be preferable but the only reason it is happening is to reset the terms clock that would otherwise turn Don Perata and Fabio Nunez (those currently in office have their term count reset to zero). So, since it is really just a bald power play I vote no again.

Indian gaming proposals - Talked about those in the So thread but I voted yes on all four. I'd be amused though if two fail and two succeed: further evidence of why initiative process is stupid.

blueerica

01-30-2008, 04:50 PM

Agreed. And if they're going to willingly (claim to) toss millions of dollars into State coffers, then what are they getting in return? Makes me terribly suspicious.

They're willing to toss millions of dollars at the State because, clearly, they're making a lot more than that. I don't know what their revenues are, etc, but I'd be willing to guess millions might not be all that much.

BarTopDancer

01-30-2008, 05:00 PM

The one I need to do more research on is the community college fees. Gray Davis doubled them, and they have gone up and down since. I need to see how they can lower the costs without raising taxes (and hitting other programs since the state subsidizes the fees).

That's getting a big, fat No from me. It isn't resolving the issue that caused community college tuition to be raised in the first place. There was also a proposition passed several years ago for maintenance and upkeep of the community college campus (this prop said it would allocate funds for that).

Kevy Baby

01-30-2008, 05:03 PM

I have a standing policy against any ballot initiative that involves spending my money.

€uroMeinke

01-30-2008, 07:55 PM

Hmmm - I voted the same way Alex did

Not Afraid

01-30-2008, 09:02 PM

I actually have quite a problem with Indian Gaming. I tend to vote exactly opposite of the way the casinos want me to.

innerSpaceman

01-30-2008, 09:18 PM

Ah, but which casinos? Las Vegas casinos want you to vote one way, Indian casinos another.

Arghghh.

Not Afraid

01-30-2008, 09:21 PM

Well, I live in California. I don't care what Vegas wants.

innerSpaceman

01-30-2008, 09:24 PM

Alex

01-30-2008, 09:36 PM

I'll be interested to see if Helen has a response to that and what it is.

Alex

01-30-2008, 09:42 PM

I'll be interested to see if Helen has a response to that and what it is.

Just realized that sounds kind of like a "fight, fight, fight" taunt. Didn't mean it to, just honestly curious to see her respond since she's much more educated on the issue than me. Though my own opinion is one of disagreement (and would go the other way and stop infantilizing them by placing all kinds of hoops and restrictions on their own use of their own land).

CoasterMatt

01-30-2008, 10:23 PM

Why the hell did this thread just put the song "Two Tribes" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood into my head?

Kevy Baby

01-30-2008, 10:28 PM

Why the hell did this thread just put the song "Two Tribes" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood into my head?Because you were dreaming of gay men?

Cadaverous Pallor

01-30-2008, 11:22 PM

Ever since I drove out to Palm Springs and past the Morongo Resort (is that the one?) with GIANT ROOFTOP DISPLAYS BEGGING FOR PASSAGE OF THOSE INITIATIVES, I've been suspicous of them.
I don't know why it'd make you "suspicious", it's pretty obvious that it would benefit the casino. "Hmm, they want me to pass this for some reason, what could it be??"

Each of those would bump a specific Indian Band's number of slot machines allowed from 2,000 to 5,000 for two of them, and from 2,000 to 7,500 for two others.

Payments to the gov't would increase - by a lot. In the instance of prop 94, Pechanga currently pays $29 million to the state, but if this passes, they'll pay at least $42.5 mil, and there are additions to this minimum.

The props include environmental impact requirements, required audits, operating guidelines, etc.

I'm having trouble finding a reason to oppose them - especially because I don't live with one of these tribes in my backyard. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I lived there. But if I did, I'd probably move. I'm not a fan of gambling and the environment it engenders, but people love it, and I prefer letting people be free, as long as I have the option of being away from it. And yes, the gov't should get their chunk.

€uroMeinke

01-30-2008, 11:42 PM

I just found the Indians on the vote No ads less attractive than the vote Yes Indians

Prudence

01-31-2008, 12:04 AM

I'm just happy that Indian law is now on the WA bar - it's so new that we're all pretty equally disadvantaged, and hopefully I'll get an Indian law question instead of something totally sucky - like corporations.

So if I was there I'd vote yay, give 'em whatever they want.

Of course, if I was there I probably wouldn't be taking the WA bar.

BarTopDancer

01-31-2008, 11:09 AM

I enjoy Vegas environments in Vegas. But I really don't care if the Indian Casinos build 2000 more slot machines. I still doubt I'd go there.

So a yes vote helps the poor tribes and helps the state. Not seeing the bad side.

innerSpaceman

01-31-2008, 11:21 AM

I think the Yes Indians are more attractive than the No Indians because they are the ones with money to look good, and the others are still mired in poverty.

Somehow I recall that every benefit for the Yes Indians works to screw over the No Indians. And more money for the state seems good, but I hate gambling and I want it outlawed (says the person who wants almost all drugs legalized). And it bugs me that there's one law for (certain) Yes Indians and another law for all other Californians. Bah on that.

I'm voting with the No Tribe. My spirit animal will do likewise.

Ghoulish Delight

01-31-2008, 11:25 AM

Somehow I recall that every benefit for the Yes Indians works to screw over the No Indians. And more money for the state seems good, but I hate gambling and I want it outlawed (says the person who wants almost all drugs legalized). And it bugs me that there's one law for (certain) Yes Indians and another law for all other Californians. Bah on that.
It may bug you, but that was the deal. We were supposed to give them sovereignty. What bugs me is the two-faced nature that we've treated the supposed "sovereignty" with. Like I said elsewhere, it's either sovereign or it's not.

Strangler Lewis

01-31-2008, 11:45 AM

I don't like the "It helps the state argument." It's akin to the "Our schools win, too!" argument for the lottery. We should be able to come up with ways to raise revenue other than on the backs of the lower classes, i.e., ways other than lotteries, taxes on state-encouraged gambling and escalating traffic fines.

Alex

01-31-2008, 11:48 AM

I agree with that. I'm pro-gambling but other than in line with other businesses I am not gambling enriching the state coffers.

I am very much against state run gambling and would happily see the state lottery system dismantled. Not even the mob would consider running gambling operations so tilted as the state lotteries.

NirvanaMan

01-31-2008, 11:56 AM

The only one I really cared much about was 91. Money for transportation is continually pilfered by the government for non-related spend after initiatives are passed by the electorate with the specific goal of improving transportation and highway initiatives in the state.

I really believe one of the only purposes of goverment is to develop and maintain public infrastructure, specifically roads and highway systems. It is essential to retain those dollars for those purposes. It is also a key concern of many voters in CA so they are willing to pony up a couple extra bucks as traffic continues to be such an issue, especially in LA. It is misleading and downright criminal to then divert said resources into something else be it education or some pork barrel initiative.

Strangler Lewis

01-31-2008, 12:01 PM

Not to disagree about improper diversion, but education is a form of public infrastructure.

Kevy Baby

01-31-2008, 01:10 PM

The only one I really cared much about was 91. Money for transportation is continually pilfered by the government for non-related spend after initiatives are passed by the electorate with the specific goal of improving transportation and highway initiatives in the state.I may be incorrect on this, but I thought that Measure M, which provided transit funds for Orange County, worked out pretty good. As I've said before, I am usually against anything which spends my money (read: bond issues), but I think this was one that actually did what it was supposed to do.

SacTown Chronic

01-31-2008, 01:40 PM

With Al Gore's greatest invention - the internet (he also invented global warming and space docking; Tipper invented bukkake and the PMRC) - who needs brick and mortar casinos anymore, anyway? You'd be stunned to know how many fish I catch and skin on a regular basis by playing online poker. And with sports betting and casino games also just a click away.....well, I haven't been inside an actual casino in years.

Kevy Baby

01-31-2008, 02:35 PM

With Al Gore's greatest invention blah blah blahYa know, it's hard to take anything you post seriously with that avatar of yours. It's like a train wreck: ya just can't help but look!

Ghoulish Delight

01-31-2008, 02:44 PM

I may be incorrect on this, but I thought that Measure M, which provided transit funds for Orange County, worked out pretty good. As I've said before, I am usually against anything which spends my money (read: bond issues), but I think this was one that actually did what it was supposed to do.Measure M has indeed been a major boon for OC. And there's talk of proposing a similar measure for LA. I'm betting it'll never pass as a ballot prop.

SacTown Chronic

01-31-2008, 04:10 PM

Totally, Kevy.

NirvanaMan

01-31-2008, 05:34 PM

I may be incorrect on this, but I thought that Measure M, which provided transit funds for Orange County, worked out pretty good.

http://www.aaa-calif.com/corpinfo/transportation.aspx

Some info there, though it could be better. Some bonds are acted on properly, some are not.

And I guess it is arguable that education is part of public infrastructure, though I disagree. Definitely open to interpretation though. Either way, I don't think even you could find a way to classify education as a transportation initiative.

:)

Kevy Baby

01-31-2008, 06:12 PM

To clarify: I think Measure M is very much the exception. I am usually not too impressed with the initiatives that do pass.

http://www.aaa-calif.com/corpinfo/transportation.aspxUnfotunately, this link does not go directly to a story :(
I am curious what spin that liberal extremist organization has to say on the matter :)

Either way, I don't think even you could find a way to classify education as a transportation initiative.Driver's Ed?

ETA: I think I know what may be the problem with the link. I hear the Internet Marketing Department has questionable management. :D

Cadaverous Pallor

01-31-2008, 11:53 PM

And I guess it is arguable that education is part of public infrastructure, though I disagree. Dude, you really think that paved streets are more vital to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than educated citizens? Yeah, yeah, I've worked education-related jobs for most of my career, but still. I totally agree about misappropriations, but that's the case for all worthy government endeavors.

Measure M wasn't a bond issue, which is part of the reason it kicks ass.

JWBear

02-01-2008, 11:07 AM

NirvanaMan

02-01-2008, 11:15 AM

ETA: I think I know what may be the problem with the link. I hear the Internet Marketing Department has questionable management. :D

Could be. But perhaps it's user error. The link works perfectly fine for me. It is a little microsite our PR department did regarding transportation propositions to put some pressure on Sacramento to actually follow through on that which the voters authorized.

Ghoulish Delight

02-01-2008, 11:16 AM

Could be. But perhaps it's user error. The link works perfectly fine for me. It is a little microsite our PR department did regarding transportation propositions to put some pressure on Sacramento to actually follow through on that which the voters authorized.
It makes you enter a zip code before redirecting to the article.

NirvanaMan

02-01-2008, 11:31 AM

Dude, you really think that paved streets are more vital to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than educated citizens? Yeah, yeah, I've worked education-related jobs for most of my career, but still. I totally agree about misappropriations, but that's the case for all worthy government endeavors.

Measure M wasn't a bond issue, which is part of the reason it kicks ass.

If you read my comments again I believe you would have to concur that I made no such qualitative judgment in my statement. I simply questioned whether it might be considered to be part of the public infrastructure. I suppose I could be convinced either way on it, though my first blush tendency is to balk at anything government controlled. I don't necessarily disagree that K-12 by our friendly government is the wrong way to go about things. However I can't say I've been interested enough to pay it much thought.

Would you argue against the importance of good roads in a modern society? Either way, diverting funds away from that which the electorate specifically authorized their collection for is wrong. Just because misappropriations are a frequent issue, doesn't make them right nor does it mean that it should be ignored.

JW, not sure that your assertation is entirely accurate. I would argue that there is not one fundamental difference and those differences certainly vary if you are comparing liberals to conservatives versus Republicans to Democrats. However, if we were to take it one level up perhaps you are meaning to say (perhaps not) that the right believes in personal responsibility whereas the left believes in whatever benefits the collective good. This obviously gets vague where issues such as abortion and gay rights seem to cross over between party lines and the whole thing just gets rather muddy honestly.

So I will say that I believe in personal responsibility and choice. Health, safety and education are rather vague topics and ones that would need to be explored at a deeper level for me to define my belief as to the role of government in each area and certainly too difficult to make blanket statements about any generalized political belief system.

I do believe however that government should exist solely to provide that which a person cannot reasonably be expected to provide for themselves (roads and stealth bombers come to mind).

NirvanaMan

02-01-2008, 11:31 AM

It makes you enter a zip code before redirecting to the article.

Yup. Enter any SoCal Zip. Nothing that can be done about that.

Kevy Baby

02-01-2008, 11:55 AM

It makes you enter a zip code before redirecting to the article.

Yup. Enter any SoCal Zip. Nothing that can be done about that.I guess I was expecting a link to a specific article on Measure M. Very misleading sez I and I once again blame the Internet Marketing Management.

NirvanaMan

02-01-2008, 12:31 PM

I guess I was expecting a link to a specific article on Measure M. Very misleading sez I and I once again blame the Internet Marketing Management.

General microsite on all transportation related bonds and initiatives that are relevant to southern california.

And suck it kevy. Suck it hard and suck it long.

GusGus

02-01-2008, 12:54 PM

Don't tempt him!;)

Kevy Baby

02-01-2008, 01:20 PM

And suck it kevy. Suck it hard and suck it long.:D

NirvanaMan

02-01-2008, 02:46 PM

Don't tempt him!;)

Good point.

3894

02-03-2008, 08:36 AM

This may be awfully racist and stupid of me, but I think it's high time we stopped treating native americans as some sort of separate nation. Um, yeah, it's been 300 years. I know they are oppressed, but they are not a nation unto themselves and they should not have separate laws and a separate, illegal economy (which "in" tribes use to oppress the other tribes).

Bah.

You're confusing the idea of nation with the modern nation-state with boundaries and distinctive laws, etc. The term "nation" can be applied to tribes who have an historic sense of where they lived, who they were linguistically and culturally. When you understand that the term "nation" is a broader definition than the modern nation-state, I think you'll agree that Indian "tribes" can also be called "nations" and were recognized as such by the U.S. government when treaties were made defining their territory and rights.

Yes, it's been 300 years but most of those "nations" still have a sense of who they are, where they came from, etc. Some of them were never recognized by the U.S., especially in the East, because their contact with Europeans predated the United States. As a result, there are a number of tribal "nations" in the East that have only been recognized by states and may never gain national recognition. This is unfortunate because their status in the eyes of the U.S. government is not as high as the Western tribes where treaties were made.

Strangler Lewis

02-03-2008, 11:12 AM

My knowledge of Indian law is limited, but I think it's been over a century since Congress declared that Indian tribes are not separate nations with whom treaties can be made.

3894

02-03-2008, 11:39 AM

My knowledge of Indian law is limited, but I think it's been over a century since Congress declared that Indian tribes are not separate nations with whom treaties can be made.

That's true. Congress did declare in 1868 that the period of making treaties was over. That doesn't mean that the ideas of sovereignty, as defined by Justice Marshall in Cherokee v Georgia and Worchester v Georgia in the
1830's as dependant sovereign nations does not still hold.

Of course, President Jackson ignored this ruling and ordered the removal of the Cherokee nation to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma, of course).

Cadaverous Pallor

02-03-2008, 12:39 PM

CP, that is one of the fundamental philosophical differences between many on the right and left. Those on the right see things such as health, safety, and education as matters of personal choice. Those on the left see these things as part the public good.I'm trying really hard not to be offended by you educating me on what right and left are. :rolleyes: As a friend to a friend, the condescention here is unnerving. I've posted many times about my migration from one side of the spectrum to the other to some degree, so please, don't tell me what each side is like, thanks.

If you read my comments again I believe you would have to concur that I made no such qualitative judgment in my statement. I simply questioned whether it might be considered to be part of the public infrastructure. I suppose I could be convinced either way on it, though my first blush tendency is to balk at anything government controlled. I don't necessarily disagree that K-12 by our friendly government is the wrong way to go about things. However I can't say I've been interested enough to pay it much thought. I totally see where you're coming from, as I used to agree with you. One argument I would make is that even if you personally are not going to have children, the people that you work with throughout your life - your doctor, your real estate agent, your auto repairman, your grocery checker - may or may not have had a good education. You will not have cared about that until the moment that they screw up your order at a restaurant or handle your complaint poorly due to lack of socialization growing up.

Oh, and the guy that breaks into your car, or hangs around homeless near your freeway exit may have had a better start due to all of our help. Again, I know this is all pointless in the light of the doctrine of personal responsibility, but I've come to understand that there's no way to be personally responsible if you didn't have a decent education.

The thing is, what is "infrastructure"? As an employee of AAA, you should know the history of the company. Originally it was formed as a private club to provide road infrastructure where there wasn't any. So, shock of shocks, a private agency provided this infrastructure instead of the government. I fail to see how this isn't any different from education in your rationale.

Personally, I think both should be on the list of things we provide for the public good.

Prudence

02-03-2008, 03:59 PM

JWBear

02-03-2008, 05:03 PM

I'm trying really hard not to be offended by you educating me on what right and left are. :rolleyes: As a friend to a friend, the condescention here is unnerving. I've posted many times about my migration from one side of the spectrum to the other to some degree, so please, don't tell me what each side is like, thanks.

Excuse the hell out of me for stating opinions. I thought that was still allowed.

3894

02-04-2008, 07:44 AM

Aren't federally-recognized tribes sovereign somewhat in the sense that states are sovereign? Individual states can't go off and make treaties, but they can (within Constitutional limits) make laws that apply in that state.

Right, individual states are superseded by the federal government in treaty-making. Federally-recognized tribes have sovereign rights dependant on the federal government, which places them under federal jurisdiction, instead of state jurisdiction.

As far as gaming is concerned, the Gaming Act of 1988 stated that tribes must form compacts as an equal to the state in which they reside. The compacts can only be made if the state already allows Class III gaming, which is high-stakes gaming. The federal law came about as an interpretation of the right for Indian tribes to have gaming on their reservations, according to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Cabazon Mission Band in California v State of California. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that California did not have the right to ban a bingo establishment that the Cabazon Band had. It would have been a violation of their sovereign right to have gaming on their reservation, despite the fact that the State of California, at the time, did not allow it.

Indians are under the jurisdiction of the federal government with regard to criminal behavior beyond misdemeanors and that is why FBI agents are usually assigned to reservations.

Prudence

02-04-2008, 08:05 AM

Indians are under the jurisdiction of the federal government with regard to criminal behavior beyond misdemeanors and that is why FBI agents are usually assigned to reservations.

Unless PL 280 applies.

innerSpaceman

02-04-2008, 08:50 AM

Regardless, it's a move by four rich tribes - filthy rich i might add - to get richer by adding 17,000 more slots to their casinos. As it stands now, the wealth is divided among 2,100 people ... who get 30,000 a month! Yes, that's per month. And the vast beneficence of Indian Gaming revenue goes to a mere 2,100 people who control more than a third of the state's indian gaming industry (and representing a mere 4 of the state's 108 federally recognized tribes).

The bit about more gaming revenue providing more money to the state is a canard. The more California residents gamble away on gaming spending, the less they spend on goods and services that are taxed at an even higher rate. If 94 -97 pass, the money will simply be shifted from higher taxed spending to lower taxed spending. And the 2100 filthy rich indians will get filthier.

By the way, gaming has become an $8 billion industry in California, soon to overtake the trucking industry, dairy industry and perhaps even the Hollywood film industry as the leading industry in the state.

The two sides on this issue have spent more than $100 million dollars, making it the costliest initiative fight in California history ... maybe in history, period.

Says Cal State San Bernadino economics professor Eric Nilson, "When someone goes to a casino and loses $500, that's money not spent at a local restaurant, at the video store or at a local mall - all businesses that pay state taxes. The casino pays no state or local taxes on that money. This is just shifting money around."

:iSm: innerSpaceman says VOTE NO ON PROPOSITIONS 94, 95, 96 & 97.

3894

02-04-2008, 08:57 AM

And the 2100 filthy rich indians will get filthier.

Quite right. Tom and I are writing a book about who gets to share in that wealth, i.e. who is in the tribe and who ain't. Look for it in about a year.

Alex

02-04-2008, 09:51 AM

And the 2100 filthy rich indians will get filthier.

By the way, gaming has become an $8 billion industry in California, soon to overtake the trucking industry, dairy industry and perhaps even the Hollywood film industry as the leading industry in the state.

So?

When I lose $500 in Vegas that is money that doesn't get spent in California restaurants either. And to me, this is essentially the same thing as us having a vote on what Nevada is allowed to do.

You disagree that the tribes are deserving of any distinctive rights but I don't and also don't consider it my role to determine what is fair among them. Besides, unless the reservations have developed complex service and industrial infrastructures I've not heard about, that $30,000 month earned is ultimately spent back in California so you can tax it then.

So Alex says vote yes on props 94, 95, 96, and 97 because it is none of our damn business.

Kevy Baby

02-04-2008, 10:16 AM

So?Damnit Alex: you stole my opener.

Regardless, it's a move by four rich tribes - filthy rich I might add - to get richer by adding 17,000 more slots to their casinos.To quote Alex: So?

Since when is making money a problem? I've never understood that argument. Revenue is being generated, people are employed; where is the harm in that?

The two sides on this issue have spent more than $100 million dollars, making it the costliest initiative fight in California history ... maybe in history, period.That is great news! That means that they have injected $100 million dollars into primarily the California economy and for certain the US economy. We should be thanking them for the near-term economic stimulus at a time when it is badly needed.

Says Cal State San Bernardino economics professor Eric Nilson, "When someone goes to a casino and loses $500, that's money not spent at a local restaurant, at the video store or at a local mall - all businesses that pay state taxes. The casino pays no state or local taxes on that money. This is just shifting money around."And what does someone do when they WIN $500? They typically spend it on items that are taxed, thus creating income for the state and local economies. While I concur that there is more money lost at the casinos (be they local or Nevada), the differential is minimal (in the sense that it is not a 10:1 ratio of money lost to money won).

I have yet to hear a solid argument against the propositions that would sway me to vote no on them.

innerSpaceman

02-04-2008, 10:31 AM

Do either of you have an argument as to why you would vote Yes on them?

If I understand you correctly, your collective point is that it's none of our damn business. So do you intend to abstain from voting on it, or do I misunderstand one or both of you?

I'd likely agree that it's none of my damn business, but there it is on my ballot. And, this is just me, but I think anyone making $30,000 a month is OBSCENE on its face, and I will vote against that for anyone in the world any time they put such a choice on my ballot.

(Most of the time, I don't get to vote against extreme disproportionate wealth distribution, so I'll thrilled at the opportunity I'll have tomorrow.)

3894

02-04-2008, 10:39 AM

I think anyone making $30,000 a month is OBSCENE on its face, and I will vote against that for anyone in the world any time they put such a choice on my ballot.

The per-capitas aren't divided that simply. Quite a bit of the gaming revenue is put into diversification of the tribes' portfolios and tribal infrastructure. The tribes do not like the potential instability of gaming revenue.

Here in Wisconsin, the Ho Chunk (a.k.a. Winnebago) quickly eclipsed the Green Bay Packers in earnings. If I remember correctly, the Ho Chunk per capitas are $3,000/mo. Click here for a USA Today piece explaining why and how a different Ho Chunk group has diversified its investments (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-10-winnebago-tribe_x.htm).

Alex

02-04-2008, 10:47 AM

Yes, it is none of my damn business and they should be able to do whatever they want. So, I think it is wrong in the first place that they have to negotiate with the state to do that but to the extent that I am given the opportunity to loosen the reins and allow them to do that which they were forced to negotiate, I will vote yes.

But then, as usual, we come from different axiomatic starting points. I see nothing obscene about earning $30,000/month or $3 billion/month so long as everybody involved in the financial transactions are willing adults.

As an extreme example, if given the opportunity would you have disallowed Maria Altmannn from selling in 2006 Gustav Klimt's Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer for $135 million? She is 90 years old. That works out to about $125,000 for every month she had lived at the time. And all she had to do was have the right uncle.

Morrigoon

02-04-2008, 10:49 AM

I'm mostly suspicious of it because of the sheer amount of money they obviously stand to make from it.* I mean, there was a "vote yes" ad on during the g*ddamn SUPER BOWL. ANY political initiative having that much money poured into it is going to make me suspicious. In light of some of the other crap I've seen them try to pull using initiatives in the past (one gaming initiative would have basically forced the state to automatically renew gaming compacts. Forced.), I don't trust for a second that there aren't things hidden in the text of this one that will serve them a whole lot and the rest of California not at all. Besides, there's enough gambling already in this state. If CA needs more slots, let another tribe open them. At this point, about the only gambling-related initiative I'd vote for would be one that removed the requirement to involve cards in the games (eg: California Craps, and such stupidity).

(*-said with the understanding that there is nothing wrong with people making money, but the sheer amount of money they must stand to make from this, given their investment in it sets off my "shenanigans" alarm something fierce.)

innerSpaceman

02-04-2008, 11:27 AM

And yes, Alex ... if given the opportunity to vote Robin Hood style on forbidding the sale of an inherited painting for $125 million, I would.

That's not to say I agree such a thing should be up for a vote by me. But if it is, then Errol Flynn will be my guide.

JWBear

02-04-2008, 11:29 AM

Alex

02-04-2008, 11:30 AM

Cool. No argument with that, we just disagree.

Out of curiosity, do you have any sense of when the line of decency in terms of personal wealth has been crossed or is it like Potter Stewart and pornography?

Kevy Baby

02-04-2008, 11:47 AM

I'd likely agree that it's none of my damn business, but there it is on my ballot. And, this is just me, but I think anyone making $30,000 a month is OBSCENE on its face, and I will vote against that for anyone in the world any time they put such a choice on my ballot.

(Most of the time, I don't get to vote against extreme disproportionate wealth distribution, so I'll thrilled at the opportunity I'll have tomorrow.)The question aside as to whether 2,100 individuals are receiving $30,000 per month, what makes the number obscene? Is it that no one is allowed to make more than you? (And I do not mean this as a personal jab - I don't believe anyone on this board makes that kind of money.) When does an amount of money become obscene? To a minimum wage worker, $3,000 per month is a lot of money and $6,000 per month ($72,000 per year) may be an obscene amount of money. Is $10,000 per month obscene? Where is the cut-off point?

Personally, I don't believe that any amount of money made by an individual is obscene as long as it is made in an honest fashion and not at the detriment of others. In the case of the Indian Casinos issues, I am not seeing a negative to allowing.

So to me, the issue is about whether the tribes should be allowed to make a choice to expand. Since no one appears to be harmed by allowing the expansion, I see no need to disapprove it unless I want to strip someone of their choice. Wouldn't the liberals be in favor of allowing choice?

innerSpaceman

02-04-2008, 12:29 PM

Ok, Kevy ... well I don't believe any money made from gambling is made honestly. And I don't happen to believe that selling a painting you did not buy is done honestly.

Your mileage may vary. And yes, I have no predefined red-line of wealth obsenity ... so I only know it when I see it, and only vote on it when someone in government decides I have that right.

I see Indians making 30,000 per month from the weakness of poor schmucks who lose their money in rigged games of chance ... and when those Indians want more money from that immoral (imo) scheme, I will say No if I'm asked.

How nice of them to ask me. Now go fvck yourselves, rich and thieving redskins.

(Yeah, I said redskins ... I'm the LoT racist, remember?)

Kevy Baby

02-04-2008, 12:38 PM

3894

02-04-2008, 01:29 PM

I see Indians making 30,000 per month from the weakness of poor schmucks

Maybe you have me on Ignore, I don't know. The per capitas are not figured in the way you indicate.

In certain ways gaming is fvcking the tribes because it has changed the way that Indians define who is and is not Indian, and all because of money. Gaming is going a long way towards "helping" Indians assimilate the values of the dominant society.

JWBear

02-04-2008, 01:37 PM

...And I don't happen to believe that selling a painting you did not buy is done honestly....

Why? If I remember correctly, she inherited the painting. It was hers to do as she saw fit. How is selling your own possessions dishonest?

Alex

02-04-2008, 01:38 PM

I should also clarify that if I were a member of a tribe I would campaign strongly for staying out of large gambling operations as I think in the long run they probably aren't a great idea for the tribe as a distinct entity.

But I'm not and they have decided on that course so I don't feel that even if I'm being given a chance to enforce on them my preferences that it is an opportunity I should have been given..

Alex

02-04-2008, 01:43 PM

Why? If I remember correctly, she inherited the painting. It was hers to do as she saw fit. How is selling your own possessions dishonest?

The painting was from looted from her uncle's estate looted by the Nazis during the annexation of Austria.

She fought for decades to get the paintings taken from her uncle's estate (she is one of three heirs) returned and was finally victorious in 2006 when an Austrian judge required the Austrian museum that possessed them had to return them to her.

Morrigoon

02-04-2008, 05:21 PM

Kevy: admittedly I did not watch the Superbowl long enough to see the other side's ad. But I don't consider myself swayed by the opposition's ads either. I just go based on knowing what "now" is, versus my suspicion of whatever changes someone is trying to make. Of course someone always stands to profit, no matter what happens, but it isn't profit that scares me, it's profit motive - in other words, if someone is trying to CHANGE something, and I don't know enough about it to know what kind of changes we're talking about.

In general I don't trust any ads regarding political initiatives because, much like campaigns for candidates, they make broad promises of what will happen without telling me the details of how it is supposed to be accomplished. So you really never know what you're voting on, even though you're given the impression of having a "say" in the system. And given that the likelihood of any voting majority in this country actually going to the trouble of looking for and interpreting the actual text of an initiative, I think that activists of any nature know they can promise that Initiative X will do Y, and people will vote based upon that statement, even if Initiative X basically declares that the state will now be run by the Intergalactic Federation with Senator Palpatine installed as Emperor-for-life, and claim Y says that we're voting to put more money into schools and save fuzzy bunnies from absolute annihilation by Vogon bulldozers.

JWBear

02-04-2008, 06:19 PM

The painting was from looted from her uncle's estate looted by the Nazis during the annexation of Austria.

She fought for decades to get the paintings taken from her uncle's estate (she is one of three heirs) returned and was finally victorious in 2006 when an Austrian judge required the Austrian museum that possessed them had to return them to her.

Thank you for the clarification, Alex.

My question for IsM still stands. The painting legally belonged to her. Why was it dishonest for her to sell her own property?

Alex

02-04-2008, 07:11 PM

I didn't mean to offer any invalidation of the question just to provide the fuller history in case it mattered to anybody.

Steve, beyond simply disagreeing with you, has anybody here accused or implied racism on your part that you feel the need to pre-emptively cloak yourself under it's mantle?

Kevy Baby

02-04-2008, 07:22 PM

Following the title of the thread, does anyone have comment on Proposition 92: the "Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. (http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title_sum/prop_92_title_sum.html)"? (The link is to the CA Secretary of State web site on the issue.)

I haven't had a chance to research it properly and I was hoping someone had some insight (one way or the other).

innerSpaceman

02-04-2008, 07:29 PM

JW: What's legal and what's right are too often not the same in my book.

Alex: It was just a pre-emptive (and board-historically humorously meant) remark that i thought prudent after my decision to use a (literally) colorful phrase in my passionate rhetoric about certain native americans.

Alex

02-04-2008, 07:30 PM

Beyond my initial comments, not really. But the SF Chronicle No endorsement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/17/ED7KTUJO9.DTL) mirrors my general thinking and provides a bit more in the way of numerical support.

By the way, on the issue of Prop 91, I had missed this fact but even the original proposers of it have abandoned it per this bit (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/19/EDDDU0C8C.DTL) at the SF Chronicle (it was superceded by Prop 1A last year and is on the ballot without any support because of a legal technicality.

JWBear

02-04-2008, 09:31 PM

JW: What's legal and what's right are too often not the same in my book...

Ok... Why is it not right for someone to sell their own property. I'm not asking to be an a$$hole. I just can't for the life of my understand your objection.

Cadaverous Pallor

02-04-2008, 09:52 PM

Excuse the hell out of me for stating opinions. I thought that was still allowed.Perhaps it was me, but your post sounded condescending. Here's an analogous comment:

"See, JW, a Democratic nominee usually gets the support of the labor unions, and the Republican nominee usually gets the support of gun lobby."

To which the appropriate response is: "Um, duh, I'm not a complete moron."

And yes, Alex ... if given the opportunity to vote Robin Hood style on forbidding the sale of an inherited painting for $125 million, I would.

That's not to say I agree such a thing should be up for a vote by me. But if it is, then Errol Flynn will be my guide.I hate when people misquote Robin Hood. Robin Hood did not steal from the rich. The rich stole from the poor, aka, taxed them at an ungodly rate and used the profits to line their jackets while the poor starved. Robin Hood took the wealth back and gave it to its rightful owners. Robin Hood would not take something someone actually earned and give it to someone poor. Robin Hood might be construed to support tax breaks or tax refunds (depending on where your limit of "stealing" might be) but the basic Robin Hood concept does not apply to actual thievery.

Ok... Why is it not right for someone to sell their own property. I'm not asking to be an a$$hole. I just can't for the life of my understand your objection.I agree with JW on this and am interested in your response.