My Take on the CA Ballot Propositions

7 Propositions have made the ballot for the upcoming primary. Here's my take.

Prop 91 - Transportation Funding Initiative - NO
Even the supporters of this measure say to vote no now. A law was recently passed that makes this OBE.

Prop 92 - Community College Funding - NO
Currently CA education funding is divided between K-14 education as needed. This would force the state to allocate specific amounts to Community Colleges leaving the rest to K-12. It also reduces the tuition to $15 a unit. This amounts to huge spending increases for Community College education either at the expense of K-12 or requiring the state to spend more for K-12 with no additional revenue source. In addition the reduced fees could only be increased if the per-capita income in the state increased by more than 7% in a single year (which has only happened once in the last 20 years). Thus the tuition fees are no longer a source of revenue, and they cannot be raised in the future - not even for inflation which would cause an even bigger burden on the state budget.

Prop 93 - Term Limits Modifications - NO
Currently a person can serve a total of 14 years - 2 4-year terms in the state senate, and 3 2-year terms in the assembly. This would reduce the total amount of time a person can serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years, but it would allow a person to spend the entire 12 years in a single house. However, this also allows all current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of prior service. The proponents argue that they are reducing term limits, and promoting experience by allowing individuals to serve the entire time in a single house. That is a BIG FAT MISLEADING LIE. This measure was written and sponsored by the current assembly speaker and 46 others who would otherwise be forced out of the state legislature by term limits this year. They don't tell you that this measure really extends the legislative careers of those 47 individuals. Instead they wrap this in the guise of reducing term limits. Don't pass this misleading measure. Lets actually kick out those whose terms are expiring this year and shake up our current liberal legislature with new bodies by voting NO.

Props 94-97 Indian Gaming Amendment - YES
The governor recently re-negotiated 4 Indian gaming compacts. A petition was filed to stop the law ratifing these compacts from going into effect unless these propositions (one for each tribal compact) are passed. The compacts basically increase the number of slot machines each tribe can operate, and force them to contribute a larger share of their revenue to the state general fund. More slot machines plus a larger % being contributed to the state equals much more money to our general fund to ease our budget crisis. The critics are mainly anti-gambling folks and Nevada casinos who don't want to see gaming in CA. They also argue that it's not fair that only 4 tribes are included in these compacts. In actuality, any tribe can re-negotiate their gaming compact, and others have done so in the past. They only target these tribes, however, since they have the largest gaming operations now, and pose the largest threat to Nevada casinos. A YES vote would allow these compacts to be ratified, allow these tribes to expand their current gaming operations, and provide a huge boost of funds to the state general fund.

While this next measure doesn't apply to me (it only applies to LA city residents), I include it here because I can't stand misleading ballot measures, and this measure is extremely misleading (so for full disclosure):
LA City Telephone Tax
The city of LA currently has a 10% telephone tax. That tax was successfully challenged in court because it never had votor approval. This measure will reinstate a 9% telephone tax. The supporters of this measure are promoting it as a tax reduction from 10% to 9%. That is anything but the truth. The 10% tax was deemed illegal, and is going away. Thus this measure is really a 9% tax increase. It also prevents the city from having to pay back everyone for the illegal 10% tax they have been collecting. The only reason they set the tax rate at 9% was so they could bill this as a tax reduction for all the uninformed voters out there. In the end, since this doesn't affect me, I leave it up to the voter to make a decision. I can't stand the tactics used to promote this measure. However, I also understand that no city can survive on a loss of $270 million a year which is what voting no on this measure would mean. Voters should understand that they voting to legalizing a tax (or implementing a new tax if you see it that way) and not voting on a tax reduction.