NO on 94-97 to Stop Bad Deals

These were the hardest to figure out. If you don't agree with me, or I'm missing something, please educate me.

This looks like a bad deal, or at least a not-good-enough deal. It appears to mostly benefit four tribes in Southern California who negotiated these compacts. Plus of course it would give huge benefits to the corporations who run the tribes' casinos. It does not appear to provide much benefit to other tribes around the state, although I'm not completely clear on that. Yes, there's some more money to other tribes, but I can't tell how much in the grand scheme of things.

It also looks like a not-good-enough deal for the state of California. At first I considering supporting them because they would provide lots more money for the state and because the legislature passed them. But after reading several other analyses, I think the state could get a better deal.

Plus gambling is a social bad. It is like tobacco: addictive, harmful, and very profitable for the people who sell it. If we aren't going to ban it, we should tax it heavily to discourage people from doing it and to use the tax revenues to do social good. To me, that means more than a 15% tax rate. I pay more than 15% of my income in taxes. So should these casinos.

I also read about problems with the environmental and labor safeguards from people I trust (APEN, for example).

Oh, and who's paying for the ads, one way or the other, doesn't bug me. Of course people who have an economic interest on both sides are going to advertise. These compacts are bad, no matter who says so.