HolyCoast: California Ballot Proposition Recommendations

UPDATE 2/6 - actual results are included below.

On February 5th California voters won't just be faced with a presidential primary, but will also have several statewide ballot propositions to vote on. I tend to be a real curmudgeon when it comes to ballot props, especially if they involve bond issues. The short version for Feb. 5th, vote NO on all of them. For further explanation, here are my recommendations for the Feb. 5th ballot:

Proposition 91 - Transportation Funds - NO. Even the original proponents of the measure are recommending a NO vote since this measure is no longer needed. DEFEATED.
Proposition 92 - Community Colleges, Funding, Governance Fees - NO. Although I have a son who will probably enter a community college in 2009 and I wouldn't mind paying lower fees, the reality of this measure is that it locks in spending increases in future years based on the growth of income without regard to actual costs, and even the analysts can't tell us what the financial impact will be in the long run. A bad bet. DEFEATED.
Proposition 93 - Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office - NO. Californians enacted term limits some years ago which has successfully removed legislators before they make a state elected office a lifetime career. The original term limits plan was well crafted, and that irritates those legislators who wish to cling to power. This plan is camouflaged as "reform", but in fact will extend the terms in office of something like 42 legislators who would have otherwise been termed out, including many of the state's most liberal lawmakers. This prop would cripple the term limits law currently on the books and should be rejected. DEFEATED.
Propositions 94, 95 96 & 97 - Indian Gaming Compacts - NO. The governor and others seem to think it's appropriate to balance the budget with slot machines. These agreements allow four already wealthy Indian tribes to significantly increase the number of slots they have in their lavish casinos in exchange for a promise to pay more to the state and to help the tribes which don't have gaming. I don't think this is the best agreement we could have gotten, and even if it was I don't think our society benefits from more gambling. Californians were fooled into agreeing to a state lottery based on the money it was supposed to generate for our schools. In fact, instead of increasing school funding state legislators simply diverted funds that would have gone to the schools to other projects and replaced those funds with the lottery money. Our schools should be awash in money based on lottery revenues, but that's clearly not the case. More gambling will bring more social problems. The state should be encouraged to cut spending, not fund itself by taxing people who are bad at math (gamblers). PASSED.