![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
essentialsaltesDiscuss.
First of all, yay. Not many to deal with in the primary.
91: Even its sponsors say it's no longer needed. Or at least that's what they want you to think. Clearly they've been bought off by.... them. NO
92: Community College smorgasbord. Let's see: requires extra $300 million of spending, while cutting incoming student fees by $70 million. :puts on Scrooge hat: Bah, humbug, NO. I appreciate the service CC's provide, but this doesn't seem to improve the system in any definite way. And check out the weird provision of Section 16:
As the analyst points out, this means that to go from $15 to $16 per unit, California incomes have to grow 6.6%, which has happened once in the last 20 years.
93: I'm ambivalent about term limits in the first place. I'm not sure whether I want them stronger or weaker. I'm not sure whether this bill will make them stronger of weaker. Curse you, Prop 93, you have irritated me into voting NO.
94-97: All the revisions to the Native American gambling compacts - all basically the same I hope, but they could have easily slipped a provision into 97 calling for the complete repatriation of America, and I wouldn't know the difference.
At first I was against the expansion of vice, but then I looked more closely. Currently, the situation is retarded. The money that the tribes pay the state is siphoned off into special funds that do me no good whatsoever. I want to benefit from the stupidity of others. If these props pass, most of the money will go into California's General Fund, where I may actually see some benefit.
The downside is that Hollywood Park gets the shaft, hurting the local tax base in the 'wood. Nonetheless, YES.
First of all, yay. Not many to deal with in the primary.
91: Even its sponsors say it's no longer needed. Or at least that's what they want you to think. Clearly they've been bought off by.... them. NO
92: Community College smorgasbord. Let's see: requires extra $300 million of spending, while cutting incoming student fees by $70 million. :puts on Scrooge hat: Bah, humbug, NO. I appreciate the service CC's provide, but this doesn't seem to improve the system in any definite way. And check out the weird provision of Section 16:
The fee prescribed by Section 76300 and this section shall not be
increased in any year by an amount exceeding the lesser of:
(1) The percentage change in per capita personal income of California
residents from the second preceding year to the immediate preceding year,
rounded down to the nearest whole dollar; or...
As the analyst points out, this means that to go from $15 to $16 per unit, California incomes have to grow 6.6%, which has happened once in the last 20 years.
93: I'm ambivalent about term limits in the first place. I'm not sure whether I want them stronger or weaker. I'm not sure whether this bill will make them stronger of weaker. Curse you, Prop 93, you have irritated me into voting NO.
94-97: All the revisions to the Native American gambling compacts - all basically the same I hope, but they could have easily slipped a provision into 97 calling for the complete repatriation of America, and I wouldn't know the difference.
At first I was against the expansion of vice, but then I looked more closely. Currently, the situation is retarded. The money that the tribes pay the state is siphoned off into special funds that do me no good whatsoever. I want to benefit from the stupidity of others. If these props pass, most of the money will go into California's General Fund, where I may actually see some benefit.
The downside is that Hollywood Park gets the shaft, hurting the local tax base in the 'wood. Nonetheless, YES.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 01:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 01:17 am (UTC)