Forget the federal election, what about Prop. 68?

[paultakeda]

This is perhaps more important to us Californians than a federal election as it affects us directly (which is not to say that the presidential election may, in the end, prove pivotal in American history).

SmartVoter.org summary (http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/68/).

Personally, it looks like a Catch-22. But I'd rather be with the devil I know, unless someone can point out why voting yes on this act would prove beneficial to our state.

[creanium]

So basically this proposition is extorting the tribes? The way I read it, the state is saying "either agree to our terms or we allow slot machines on non-Indian land." Am I wrong in my interpretation?

[madajb]

Given the absence of a proposition to remove gambling completely from Indian tribes, I'd have to be in favor of this prop.
Near as I can tell, it mitigates somewhat the completely one-sided compacts CA currently has with the Indian tribes, and brings a legal parity to the issue of gambling in CA.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

I agree with you there, but the problem is it simply shifts profits to another group, which want gambling profits in their clubs, and have hogtied the proposition to also institute a permanent ban on the opening of new clubs (so much for the free market). Nice little bit of legalese, isn't it?

[allizard]

Yeah I know we can use some money but I just looked at the map for those casinos location. There are 5 of them on my way to work. You can guess what I am voting for.

[madajb]

I agree with you there, but the problem is it simply shifts profits to another group, which want gambling profits in their clubs, and have hogtied the proposition to also institute a permanent ban on the opening of new clubs (so much for the free market). Nice little bit of legalese, isn't it?
Sort of. I read it more as, "we are going to split the profits between two entrenched groups who don't like competition" rather than leave it as it is now "Gambling is only permitted for one group who doesn't like competition".
Also, anything that weakens the legal fiction of Indian sovereignty is ok by me.
-ajb

[GTiGirl]

Based on that link, I am voting NO on Prop. 68. I look at the Indian-only restrictions to gambling as reparations to Indians: they deserve it. And, the terms limiting it to only the 16 approved sites doesn't sound right. It sure does sound like extortion, too.

[paultakeda]

I don't believe in reparations to anyone who is not the actual party but rather a descendant. Otherwise, I'd slide all the way to demanding that Spain give me money for oppressing the Filipinos for 300 years of brutal colonial rule.

I also don't believe in either an Indian monopoly or limiting it to Indians and card club owners. Frankly, I'd rather just vote in an act to legalize gambling and set a percentage of profits to go to local and state governments based on services provided to the establishment, period.

But that's no the proposition on the ballot.

[Alan_One]

I don't know what everyone is so worked up about. What did you guys think was gonna happen when we elected the Scwartz?

Fortunately I don't see this proposition passing... but haven't the Indians learned how to lobby?

[paultakeda]

Not sure what you mean, Alan. Schwarzenneger is against Prop. 68. Or did I not catch your meaning?

[madajb]

I don't believe in reparations to anyone who is not the actual party but rather a descendant. Otherwise, I'd slide all the way to demanding that Spain give me money for oppressing the Filipinos for 300 years of brutal colonial rule.

For that matter, my countrymen would like their colonies back, thanks so much.
=)

I also don't believe in either an Indian monopoly or limiting it to Indians and card club owners. Frankly, I'd rather just vote in an act to legalize gambling and set a percentage of profits to go to local and state governments based on services provided to the establishment, period.
But that's no the proposition on the ballot.
I'd like to see a proposition disallowing gambling completely, but since governments seem addicted to the lure of eay money, that's not the proposition either.
-ajb

[madajb]

Fortunately I don't see this proposition passing... but haven't the Indians learned how to lobby?
If the Indians knew anything about contracts, they wouldn't be on reservations to begin with...
=)
-ajb

[paultakeda]

For that matter, my countrymen would like their colonies back, thanks so much.
=)

Heh, that WOULD be the first step towards reparations, BEFORE you Brits then have to give it back to the League of the Iroquois, and prior to that probably to the Moundbuilders before finally opening the land up as a conservatory for bison and the genetically engineered sabre-toothed cat. And so on.

[madajb]

Heh, that WOULD be the first step towards reparations, BEFORE you Brits then have to give it back to the League of the Iroquois, and prior to that probably to the Moundbuilders before finally opening the land up as a conservatory for bison and the genetically engineered sabre-toothed cat. And so on.
It's ok, so long as I get mine first.
heh.
-ajb

[Satan4]

I will deffinitly vote no, the Native Americans have worked their asses off for their own wealth. But they should not be free from paying taxes. I am voting no, their should not be that much control put in place.

[madajb]

I will deffinitly vote no, the Native Americans have worked their asses off for their own wealth. But they should not be free from paying taxes. I am voting no, their should not be that much control put in place.
You realize by voting no, that you support the current status quo in that the tribes would continue to pay little or no taxes, right?
-ajb

[madajb]

And while we're here, let's not forget the bigger disaster that is Prop. 70.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

Hey, now, one prop. per thread. ;) We'll get to that one afterward.

[Alan_One]

Not sure what you mean, Alan. Schwarzenneger is against Prop. 68. Or did I not catch your meaning?

I know, pretty open statement. I'll narrow. My apologies.

What I'm saying is that the first place the schartz went was to the indians to negotiate some taxes in exchange for slots (simplified). Anyway, I think that experience is what opened the door for this type of proposition to even be considered viable. I don't know if you've noticed, but we've slowly been witness to an increasingly saavy lobbying effort by the natives. With partnerships and loopholes being what they are, Vegas interests are now working their way into indian gaming schemes (Harah's). There's some "Rumor" floating around that the people at caesars palace are deep into negotiatons with the Pala indian tribe (Caesars Pala?).

If the Indians knew anything about contracts, they wouldn't be on reservations to begin with...
=)
-ajb

Ebb and Flow Alan,

I'm a fan of patterns... but that's a whole other thread.

[madajb]

Hey, now, one prop. per thread. ;) We'll get to that one afterward.
Well, this one seems pretty much taken care of, there's the "OMG we hurt the Indians 100 years ago, so now we need to roll over and let them make money hand over fist while taking advantage of state resources and paying minimal amounts back into the system" camp and then there are the rational people.
heh.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

While I realize the best solution is to either legalize gamlbing or ban it completely, this is not the proposition. Basically, if the proposition passes, the tribes have 90 days to agree to further taxation in payment for services rendered (police, fire, 911, etc.), otherwise select card clubs and racetracks will be granted the right to install slot machines. Provided the tribes will agree to further taxation if the proposition passes, I can see myself voting yes.

But I wonder if I would risk it for the evil I don't know.

[madajb]

Ebb and Flow Alan,

I'm a fan of patterns... but that's a whole other thread.
The whites screwed the Indians with a crappy contract (read: proposition) so now it's their turn?
-ajb

[paultakeda]

As for Prop. 70, which I suppose we might as well discuss here even though I shouted it down earlier, I find that the only logical votes would be yes/yes and no/no. So what you decide for 68 will probably lead to the same decision for 70.

[madajb]

Provided the tribes will agree to further taxation if the proposition passes, I can see myself voting yes.
.
I can't imagine they wouldn't. 75% revenue from a monopoly is still a good deal.
Facing competition in non-rural areas (A lot of the card clubs and horsetracks are close in to the cities, unlike the reservations) is a bad deal for the Indians.
-ajb

[madajb]

As for Prop. 70, which I suppose we might as well discuss here even though I shouted it down earlier, I find that the only logical votes would be yes/yes and no/no. So what you decide for 68 will probably lead to the same decision for 70.

I would vote Yes for 68, in the hopes that the Indians would vote against their own best interest and refuse the revenue deal. This would break the absurd monopoly they currently enjoy. However, if they manage to get a consensus, at leas t the state gains some benefit from it.

I would vote No on 70, since it is essentially carte blanche for the Indians to do whatever their heart desires in the gambling industry. It reinforces the nonsensical notion of tribal sovereignty and essentially relinquishes state control over the gambling industry.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

Ah, but that is the "run the risk scenario", where you vote Yes on 68 only on the condition that the Indian, by agreeing to further taxation, will in essence turn it into a No.

;)

Though as we discuss it, it certainly seems like the best option. Yes/No, on condition that the tribes turn it into No/No to save their collective monopolizing asses.

[paultakeda]

New Prop 70 ad on TV neglects to add that what the Indian gambling interests call "fair" is paying the same taxes as any business in California -- but they get an exclusive monopoly on gambling.

Yeah. Where in free enterprise is that called fair? That's called a monopoly, and is anything but.

[madajb]

Wow, you get TV ads?
All we get up here are newspaper ads. They come in 2 flavors:
The "If'n we let them homosexhuals marry, then we done destroy'd what marriage done stand for" folks and the "It's not clear cutting, it's by golly scientific forestry..never you mind that we pay little or nothing to the Federal govt for cutting down the publics trees. Oh yeah, and them hippie environmentalists are lying" folks.

-ajb