FABOO MAMAInside the mind of an opinionated mama…

Proposition 97 is similar to Props. 94, 95 & 97.  This one focuses on the Agua Caliente Band.

I still say No on this propostion.

Now, I know that Propositions 94 – 97 will more than likely pass.  The opponents are talking about Slot Machines, I’m looking at the possible (probable?) environmental impact and the voters of California are going to see how much money the state could possibly get from these propositions.  It will be passed because Californians are greedy and would prefer to get money into state coffers the easy way.  It seems that I’m the only one who remembers that the current governor and legislature can’t even work with the money they have.  More money, doesn’t mean that more things will be taken care of.  With this way this state is run, it more likely will me that more friends and cronies will be taken care of.

Similar to Props. 94 and 94, with a focus on the Sycuan Band down in San Diego.  They only want to add 3000 more slot machines, but everything remains the same.

Nope.

Proposition 95 is the same as Prop. 94 except it benefits the Morongo Band a little further north.

Proposition 94 is called the Slot Machine Proposition. I call it the Tribes Get to Bend the Rules Again Proposition. I vehemently opposed these Indian gaming propositions. Since the idiot voters of CA approved these casinos, the tribes have gotten greedier and greedier, and frankly, all those promises of what the money will do hasn’t actually gone to the poor on reservations. It’s bullshit, that a tribe can all of a sudden cull it’s members  just so more people can get a bigger piece of the pie. Meanwhile, the poor keep being poor.\

The bill mainly benefits the Pechanga Band and their casino.

The language of the bill:

A “Yes” vote approves and a “No” vote rejects, a law that:

• Ratifies amendment to existing gaming compact between the state and Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians; amendment would permit tribe to operate 5,500 additional slot machines;
• Omits certain projects from scope of California Environmental Quality Act; amendment provides for Tribal Environmental Impact Report and intergovernmental procedure to address environmental impact;
• Revenue paid by tribe to be deposited into General Fund; tribe would make $42,500,000 annual payment and pay percentage of revenue generated from the additional slot machines to the state.

While the state and some local coffers may benefit from what the tribes will give, I’m very hesistant to approve anything that “omits certain projects from scope of California Environmental Quality Act“. It’s bad enough that housing developers and real estate moguls often can $$$ dissuade local government from doing any type of environmental impact analysis. When you consider our water woes and other environmental worries, you must wonder exactly what “certain projects” are.

No on Prop. 94.

Next.

Proposition 93 is a term limit proposition. Again?  Yeah.  Again.  Personally, I thought this is just another stupid proposition, but then I paid attention to the language:

• Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years.
• Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.
• Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house.

Oh noes!  What is Richard Alarcon going to do with is life?  Jerry Brown? Cruz Bustamante?  Oh wait, they won’t have to worry about anything because of that last bullet point.

So, what is this?  Is it reducing the number of years a person can serve or does is it mean that career politicians get an additional 12 years on top of what ever they’ve already served after their latest term is up?

I can’t back this one.  I’m not hep to having  the same stale and selfish politicians up in Sacramento.  I think career politicians are creepy.  But seriously.  If you’re going to do term limits, do it right.  If that last bullet point wasn’t in there, this would almost be a good proposition.

Proposition 92 is an interesting one. The gist is that it sets a lower fee per unit at Community Colleges.  There was an uproar a few years back when CC fees went up to $26/unit in some cases.  This proposition wants to set it at $15/unit.  Perspective:  When I went to CC back in ‘90 my classes were $9/unit then went up to $13/unit by ‘93.  But since, I was pretty poor, there was no need for me to pay anything.  I had my per unit fees waived, all while I took college courses at the CC.  The fee waivers are still in effect, meaning that a student who couldn’t afford even $7/unit can still get an education at the Community College with fees waived.

Prop. 92 will also limit the state legislature in raising or reducing fees.  Both have another convoluted formula tied into per capita income (do they make this shit difficult on purpose?)  and then the legislature will need a 2/3 majority to raise fee, but a simple majority to lower them.

There’s no need to extol the virtues or decry the pitfalls of a Community College education.    It’s a blessing and a curse.  It’s also a nice source of revenue for the state.  Proponents for this measure say that when the rates rose, less people attended community college.  Once you filter through the emotional appeals and irrelevant facts, you’re left with all these people want to do is lower the per unit rate for Community College students.  They seem to want to make this proposition a referendum on Prop. 98 passed in 1988.  Prop. 98 has some convoluted formula set up to guesstimate how much money goes to K-12 schools in the state and then another formula for K-14 schools (that includes CCs).  As the voter guide says:

The measure would not change the existing requirement that roughly 40 percent of General Fund revenues be spent on K–14 education. Consequently, Proposition 92’s new funding formulas would not apply in years when K–14’s share of General Fund spending was less than this level. In these years, the existing single minimum funding requirement would apply and the state would continue to have discretion over how to allocate funds between K–12 schools and community colleges.

Okay.

The other part of this proposition is that it amends the State Constitution to officially recognize the Community College system.  It will also give more power to the Board of Governors, while upping their numbers ($$$) all with full voting rights.  As it is, the BoG are appointed by the Governor, with input from the community for a few of the appointments.

So we’ve got more Board of Governors, lower per unit fees, a tied up legislature.

I should give the opponents to this proposition some time, but I’m not a TV station and they’re just screaming about your taxes being raised, which makes no kind of sense to me.

My logic:  If we lower the fees with this convoluted formula and a tied of legislature, the state of California can stand to lose a lot of money.   What sealed it for me was this:

This measure reduces student fees to $15 per unit beginning in fall 2008. Thus, total annual fees for a student taking a full-time load of 30 units during the 2008–09 academic year would be $450, which is $150 less than the current level. (This fee reduction would have no direct impact on needy students because fees are already waived for all students who demonstrate financial need.)

Prop. 91 is a largely useless proposition, in that we already have propositions on the book that do what this prop. proposes to do.

This proposition, as I understand it, will stop the Governor from raiding the pocketbook of the transportation budget.  This proposition states that all funds earned for transportation usage (roads, highways and the like) will be used only on transportation usage.

The original proponents of Prop. 91 are urging you to vote against it:

Passage of Prop. 1A means that state politicians in Sacramento can no longer take our gas tax dollars and use those funds for non-transportation purposes.

Because Prop. 1A is now law, hundreds of millions of dollars in existing gasoline sales taxes are being sent each year to local communities for projects to relieve traffic congestion, improve safety, and fund mass transit.

By passing Proposition 1A, voters solved the problem of state raids of our gas tax funds.

Proposition 91 is no longer needed.

We respectfully urge you to vote NO ON PROPOSITION 91.

I agree.