Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

FWIW, Here’s My Voting Plan

GOP Presidential Primary: FRED THOMPSON. Yes, I know he’s dropped out. But the four remaining active candidates are all too seriously flawed for me to embrace now. Deciding what I’ll do in November, threats to stay home nothwithstanding, can wait until November.

Prop 91: Transportation Funds Constitutional Amendment: NO. Even Prop 91’s sponsors no longer support it (gosh, I love California politics!).

Prop 92: Community College Funding Constitutional Amendment: NO. The LA Times got it right: “This initiative represents the worst form of ballot-box budgeting, and voters should reject it.” We all too often use the ballot proposition process to micromanage the state bidget in favor of some special interest and this is an especially egregious example. Given the state’s fiscal crisis, and the massive pending cuts the rest of higher eduction is facing, this is not a time to be using the constitution to lock in a multi-hundred dollar windfall for the community colleges. Let the legislature decide.

Prop 93: Term Limits. No. I’m amenable to rethinking term limits, but only in the context of a comprehensive election reform package that took on redistricting as well. Besides, this so-called “reform” actually resets the clock for existing legislators and would allow some to serve as much as 16 years.

Props 94-97: The Indian Gaming Pacts: A reluctant YES. I’m no fan of the existing Indian gaming pacts. It’s not that I object to gambling. Indeed, I’ve been known to take an occasional flutter myself. The trouble with the existing system of Indian gaming is that: (1) It is anti-competitive. Horse tracks and card clubs owned by non-Indians are not allowed to offer slots and other Vegas-style gambling games. (2) While the gaming tribes and the Las Vegas interests often squabble, it is in both their interest to prevent real competition in California. (3) Non-tribal gaming would pay regular taxes to the state, while the tribes pay a negotiated amount that’s far less than what a fully taxed casino would pay into state coffers. Having said all that, let’s not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The no on 94-97 ads would have you believe that disapproval of these deals would result in their renegotiation. Sorry. I don’t buy it. The California state legislature is in the pocket of the gaming tribes, who pour millions of dollars into campaign funds. A no vote on 94-97 thus is unlikely to magically result in a burst of good government. Instead, this deal is the best we are likely to get. Given the state fiscal crisis, we need the money offered by 93 to 97 now. It is, after all, the bird in the hand.

Prop S: Telephony Tax “Modernization”. NO.  The ballot deceptively describes local Los Angeles City proposition S as a tax rate reduction. Technically that’s true. It would cut the city telephone tax from 10 to 9%. At the same time, however, Prop S would drastically extend the coverage of the existing tax on telephones: