CA 2008 Propositions

A quick review:

Prop 91 – Apparently, even the people that wrote this bill don’t want us to vote for it. I guess they got it put on the ballot, then legislation was passed making it unnecessary. It’s only on the ballot at all because that legislation was passed too late for it to be taken off.

So I guess I’m voting no on that one.

Prop 92 – I’m hella voting no on this. I’ve only read the brief description of it in the sample ballot, but that was enough for me. This proposal would require the state spend more money on K-14 education while also reducing the amount of money brought in by the community colleges. So it would decrease revenue while also increasing spending.

No thanks.

Prop 93 – This is the big one. I’m still undecided on this one, but I’m leaning toward voting yes. I hate term limits, but if we’re going to have them, we should allow representatives to stay in either house for as long as they like, instead of forcing them to either run for office in the other house of quit. However, I don’t like that it extends the amount of time certain incumbents could stay in office. If they’ve served their 12 years, the max that would be allowed by the proposition, then they shouldn’t be allowed to run again simply because not all of those 12 years were in the same house. This would allow them to stay in office for a total of nearly 20 years. While I don’t have a problem with this by itself, I don’t think that politicians that happen to be in office when this is passed deserve to be treated differently than others.

However, this is only a temporary problem. The long term benefit of the law would be that politicians would be able to stay in one office longer, thereby becoming more effective legislators. So I’m probably going to vote for it.

Props 94-97 – I don’t really understand Indian gaming, to be honest. If they’re sovereign nations, why do they have to have the permission of the state to do anything, and furthermore, why do they pay a portion of their income to the state?

For me, the big deal with these is that they allow the tribes to audit themselves, and then to come to the state and say “hey, we made this much and this is how much we owe you”, and the state is just supposed to believe them. Maybe I’m more cynical than I should be, but I don’t think this is the right way for this to be done. We should be having either an agent of the state working with the tribes, or an independent agency audit the tribes and tell them how much they owe the state.

So. If the current agreements allow the tribes to audit themselves, and these propositions would simply raised the percentage they pay to the state, then I guess I might be ok with that. But if they remove a third party audit system and replace it with the state simply trusting the tribes, then I’ve got a big problem with that. I need to find out what the current system is and how it works to better understand the possible consequences of these changes.

This is my first blog here, btw.