Indian Gaming Agreements

My friends over at ateamblog.com asked for my feedback on the California Indian Gaming Agreements coming up here in the Golden State. Popular Republicans like the Governator (a centrist) and Tom McClintock (a conservative by today's standards) approve. The public sector unions approve. Some Democrats are for them and the dissenters do so because of a lack of casino worker's provisions (ie union protection, etc). It seems like most feel this is pretty good for the state. So lets break it down and see.

I have scoured the propositions themselves, the articles written for and against and the funding for ads for and against. Here is a brief look at the pros and cons (somethings appear on both due to ideological differences).

PROS
Increases the allowed size of 4 major casinos around 3.5 times. (more slot machines)
Increases the amount of revenue sharing among tribes. (Indians provide welfare for Indians)
Increases amount of revenue given to the state of California.
Keeps Californians money in Ca, and away from Vegas.
Not too often that the unions are happy with Republicans.
No tax increases on Californians.
Deficit Reduction.

CONS
More local gambling. (moral objection and some would argue crime increases).
Potentially gives tribes some leeway in calculating their share.
Big 4 tribes given an advantage over other tribes.
Big 4 tribes grow to size of Vegas casinos.
Recreational money spend at the casinos rather than at California businesses.
Revenue claims exaggerated.

I am not entirely decided on my eventual vote on these props, but here are my initial thoughts. I look forward to your feedback.

I am leaning towards a yes. The state seems incapable of reducing spending to sustainable levels and I am strongly opposed to any compulsory taxes. While I will probably never be income tax free, I certainly prefer to vote in that direction. Thus, in a state where spending is out of control and even a popular Republican Governor who went in with a mandate can't get spending cuts we must do something. I think this may be the answer.

Tribal lands are essentially sovereign, so not too much can be made of the objection that the agreements give them too much control on the accounting side. I think we would really have trouble flexing enough muscle to try to turn them into just another tax payer. I think that they have enough at stake with us controlling how much they can expand as to not have a stake in dishonest income reporting.

I have not seen any definitive link between crime and gambling. Given that a lot of casino revenue goes to infrastructure it may even reduce it. Whether you are morally oppose to gambling or not, should not be the basis for your vote regardless as this is not what is at stake here. Also, it is not likely that even if it was there are enough people willing to forgo the income it brings to the state to get rid of it.

I fail to see why the states are allowed to make laws for or against Indian Gaming in the first place as the Fed declares them sovereign. That being said as long as they operate at our discretion I fail to see why we wouldn't utilize that funding.

I also disagree that recreational funding would go to Calif. businesses if we don't pass these props. I think the majority of gamblers choose to gamble not choose to have fun, thus they would just wait in line at one of the locals, or take their money Vegas.

I think a lot of the opposition really is based on a either a moral objection to gambling or idealism. The moral objection is moot. The idealism is some of why we have such problems with partisanship. While I believe radical centrism is also a problem I think that when agreements can be made that lots of people can find something to like about we should embrace that as a way forward. There are somethings we will never agree on. But balancing the budget without tax increases? Everyone should be pretty excited about this.

This seems like the kind of creative solution that people keep claiming they want to unleash in politics. Bringing people together. You don't get a much more divided group than public sector unions and Republicans when it comes to politics.

All that being said this seems like a good effort. Of course, my ideal is quite a bit different (I want to see gambling restrictions lifted, the tax revenue would boost local economies in areas that are currently economically depressed) but there are a lot of people in California and a lot of different opinions, if a majority of people are "ok" with an idea why wouldn't we jump on it?