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

Right, individual states are superseded by the federal government in treaty-making.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.

Unless PL 280 applies.

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.

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.

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.

Damnit Alex: you stole my opener.

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.