NO on Prop. 94 95 96 97: These Propositions Aren't Worth the Gamble

Debra Saunders of the SF Chronicle comes out against propositions 94-97.

These propositions really aren't worth the gamble

By Debra J. Saunders

San Francisco Chronicle
January 23, 2008 6:00 AM

"Protect hundreds of millions of dollars each year in our state budget by voting yes on Prop. 94, 95, 96 and 97," reads the ballot argument signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Basically, supporters are urging voters to approve Indian "gaming" compacts with four tribes because the new pacts, which would allow the big four tribal casinos to add 17,000 slot machines, would put more money in the state budget.
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, each measure is expected to increase state revenues annually "probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030."
The whole exercise begs the question: If voters are supposed to approve more gambling to get more tax money, why not legalize gambling for everyone and really rake in the big bucks?
Why should members of four rich tribes enjoy a monopoly on new slots?
If Californians want more gambling to provide easy money for a strapped state government, think of all the dough to be made by opening up gambling outside of tribal lands.

Click the link above for the rest. But think of this: IF we don't get the $9 Billion they say, then we shouldn't vote for it. The LAO says we WON'T. So, we vote NO.