|
The millions that proponents claim will flow into the General Fund from gambling will have to come from someone. That “someone” is ordinary Californians. Let me hear you justify this with an explanation to your children. “Mommy and Daddy are going to go gamble now, we are going to spend the money we would have saved for our retirement and your college fund. The money that we lose will go into a big pot of cash. The owners of the gambling place will get to keep most of the money, and the little bit left over will go to our government to help pay for things like more police officers.”
The STAR’s opinion is that we should add 17,000 slot machines to our California gambling industry to relieve a portion of our state’s budget shortfall (props 94, 95, 96, 97). If you have a mailbox, it has been filled with large glossy cards from the Indian tribes who want you to support the same thing. They will tell you the opposition’s ads primarily come from racetracks who do not want to share this source of revenue. Their organization has the misleading name “Coalition To Protect California’s Budget and Economy.” They say if you vote YES our public safety will be shored up, that senior programs will survive, etc.
Now there is no denying the State’s finances are in a serious pinch. But these are bad deals because Props 94-97 are emblematic of a legislature that cannot control spending, will not raise taxes, and will only be a hasty stopgap measure.
First, as an example of a gambling program we currently use to support education, the Lottery is “taxed” at a whopping 83%—that is, of income not used for prizes or operational costs, 83% goes to public education, with the rest used for retailer commissions and bonuses. Props 94-97’s slot machine additions will turn that equation around for Indian casinos: 85% of profit will go to the tribes, the rest to the state. Vote NO on these propositions. If gambling is to become a way for the state to pay its debts, then we can and should go back to the table and negotiate a higher percentage of the take.
More importantly, is this really how we want to assist our state budget? The millions that proponents claim will flow into the General Fund will have to come from someone. That “someone” is ordinary Californians. Let me hear you justify this with an explanation to your children. “Mommy and Daddy are going to go gamble now, we are going to spend the money we would have saved for our retirement and your college fund. The money that we lose will go into a big pot of cash. The owners of the gambling place will get to keep most of the money, and the little bit left over will go to our government to help pay for things like more police officers.”
In the film "Its a Wonderful Life" Jimmy Stewart portrays a man who gets to see how his life affects a community he knows as Bedford Falls. Without him, the nice city he remembers instead becomes Pottersville, a gambling town full of crime because he didn't live to correct the mistakes of a greedy banker. I don't want California to become a Pottersville, regardless of our budget crisis and how this could assist us in removing debt.
A vice is a vice, and gambling leads to domestic violence, more alcohol consumption, and other complimentary addictions. More gambling creates more problems than it solves for our society and these gambling propositions are not a way to even remotely protect California’s budget and economy. Vote NO on 94, 95, 96 and 97.
|
