Proposition It II - Election Boogaloo
Previously on Proposition It, we learned how Proposition 65 begat Proposition 1A, how Prop 60 begat Prop 60A and Prop. 62. We also learned that there’s a really cranky lawyer in Mountain View. In today’s installment, we take on frivolous lawsuits, unique tax schemes, and hi-tech gadgetry. Not to mention those crazy Indian Gambling bills.
As Lionel Richie would say “Karamu, fiesta, forever/Come on and sing along."
Proposition 63- Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million.
This measure basically calls for funding Mental Health services by taxing those who have incomes over a million a year. Sounds fine to us. But if you're going to pass some sort of Eat the Rich ballot initiative, do we want it to be for Mental Health? Not that we're not for more money for Mental Health issues, but there's only so many times you can go to the well, if you know what we mean.
Proposition 64- Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws.
This one basically puts a bunch of caps and limits on "frivolous" "unfair business competition" lawsuits filed against "small businesses." Those "small business being" Microsoft, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bank of America. The Web site supporting the bill lists a bunch of crazy lawsuits that this proposition would prevent from being ever filed again. The Web site against the Proposition has a Schoolhouse Rock like cartoon on it’s home page.
Proposition 66- Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment.
Here's a shocker- the "three strikes" law turned out to be a little too much law and too much order. Who woulda thunk it? Turns out that 65% of the people stuck in prison because of this law are because of non-violent crimes. This initiative would make it so that the only people who fall victim to the "three strikes" law are those who've committed violent crimes instead of those whose third strike is for petty theft or smaller crimes. Those against it (including, apparently, noted tough-on-crime proponent Albert Einstein, who’s quoted on a No on 66 Web site) argue that by amending the "three strikes" law, we'd have criminals out on the streets, crime everywhere, and your basic dogs living with cats scenario.
Proposition 67- Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge.
To help pay for more Emergency Medical Services, which is a good thing, we're going to increase taxes on phones. Why phones, you may ask? Because people use phones “to call 911." Which makes sense, except not. Considering how many charges, surcharges, and taxes that we already get bent over with in using the phone, what are more taxes?
Proposition 69- DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding.
Heh, they said "69." I wonder if the people who were behind this initiative thought when they found out they got "69." How do the numbers get picked anyways? Is it by who signs up first? Or is it all random? Maybe "69" could have traded up to get another number?
Anyways, this bill makes it so that DNA samples are taken of all people charged with a felony so that we have records of their DNA on hand. This includes people not only who are convicted of violent crimes, but shoplifters or even trespassers. How Big Brother can you get? Especially considering if you're found innocent, they'll still keep records of your DNA. Once again, the Governor supports this one, probably because it would have made it so much easier to track down Sarah Connor.
Proposition 71- Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds.
In a basic, FU to the President, Californians put up this ballot initiative, saying that no matter what happens on this election, we're gonna go ahead with the whole stem-cell thing. Which is why we love living in California. It also ensures that just as we created the film industry and the hi-tech industry, we're gonna be number one in cloning. Yay California! In a strange twist, the Bay Guardian comes out against the initiative, thus putting them in agreement religious conservatives and George Bush on this one. Make of it what you will.
Proposition 72-Health Care Coverage Requirements.
Voting yes on this one will make it so that you're employer, whatever kind of employer you have, has to guarantee you health-care. Sort of. Basically, this bill passed the legislature and was signed into law by then Gov. Gray Davis. The Powers that Be (ie Big Business) didn't like that so put into motion this proposition. Voting "yes" ensures that the bill, passed by our legislature and the Governor, becomes law. Voting "no" means that the bill won't become law.
And finally, the Big Indian Gaming Bills (Proposition 68 & 70)
Here's another shocker, we allow Indian Gaming and all of a sudden, everyone's starting to bitch. We personally loved the commercials for these propositions showing lots of "concerned citizens" wondering why is it that the Native Americans can make so much money off of casinos and not give any back and what right they have to even do this to begin with. We basically think that after massacring most of them and taking all of their land, they can do whatever the hell they want, but that's just us. Besides, it's hard to get to upset at all those "concerned citizens" as they were merely actors reading from scripts written by various Gaming organizations.
In short, Proposition 68 says that unless the Tribes give up 25% of their proceeds to the state Government within 90 days, race tracks and card rooms can put in slot machines. And no, it's not blackmail. Not at all. And the aforementioned racetracks and card rooms, of course, have nothing to do with funding this proposition.
Proposition 70, sponsored by several of the biggest Native American tribes, calls for the tribes to pay around 9 percent tax to the state in exchange for a 99 year exclusivity rites on slot machines. Oh, and the state can't say anything about future casino rules or locations. That sounds fair.
To make matters that much more fun, since both propositions call for two different tax rates, nobody knows what'll happen if they, somehow, both win. Yay team.
The Governor has been actively campaigning against both measures. Since the Indian Casinos are in some ways, huge cash-cows, a cash starved state is looking to suck the teet of the Indian Gaming and Arnie is ready to do some sucking. He also wants to do it his way, saying that he wants the power to negotiate deals with the Indian casinos. Both of these bills would completely undermine Arnie's ability to negotiate, part of the reason these bills exist. Follow all that?