California props.: just say ‘no’
California voters will again face a withering list of ballot
measures when they go to the polls Tuesday.
California props.: just say ‘no’
California voters will again face a withering list of ballot measures when they go to the polls Tuesday.
This time, we can make it easy. The Pinnacle recommends “no” votes on Props 92-97. Since Prop. 91 is meaningless in the wake of prior legislation, a vote of “yes” or “no” is already rendered moot.
Prop. 91 would prohibit certain vehicle fuel taxes from going to the state General Fund, in theory increasing the stability of state funds for highways and streets. However, voters passed Prop. 1A in 2006, effectively blocking diversion of transportation funds by the state. In this case, your vote truly does not matter.
Prop. 92 sets community college fees statewide at $15 per unit, resulting in a potential loss of some $70 million annually to community colleges.
With reduced fees already available to any student demonstrating a need, Prop. 92 is a solution in search of a problem. Prop. 92 will lock new spending into the state Constitution without creating a means to pay for it. Vote “no.”
Prop. 93 claims to limit term limits for state legislators. Don’t believe it. The force behind this dishonest gambit comes from entrenched state politicians. As it stands, term limits are set at eight years – two terms – for state senators and six years – three terms – for Assembly members. Prop. 93, if passed, would cap service at 12 years combined Assembly and Senate membership.
Legislators about to term out of their comfortable seats are angling to get this measure approved, rather than take the chance of giving up incumbency to run in the other house. If it passes, 42 termed out incumbents get more time in office. Vote “no.”
Props. 94-97 are all about the same thing: expanding Indian gambling operations in Southern California. The state could gain additional tax revenues from larger casinos. But, just like in a craps game, the vast majority of the players will walk away from the table poorer.
Props. 94-97 would permit casino expansion with little environmental oversight. Some of the projects would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, a guideline that influences most development. It is a statistical fact that most gambling revenue comes from the pockets of people of low to moderate income. That represents a stealth tax that most heavily extracts its toll from the poor. Among the Indian tribes themselves, the profits accrue for the fortunate few, fostering the same misery and government dependency that have long plagued reservations. None of these measures, if defeated, would close existing casinos. Do Californians a favor: vote “no” on Props. 94-97.
