Well the California primary and special elections are over and our good buddy Gov. Schwarzenegger and his Democrat cronies have put yet another one over on the good but not very well informed citiczens of California. The man that I (Oh, what an idiot I was) and the majority of California voters elected as our Governor made a very sweet deal, with the backing of his cronies in the Democratic Party, with four very wealthy Indian Tribes that would allow them to add thousands of slot machines to their 'gaming' casinos while paying the State of California virtually nothing for the privilege.

When they got caught making this deal, which they tried to slip through without a vote by the people of California, Propositions 94,95,96,97 ended up on the ballot. The four Indian tribes immeaditly began a advertising propaganda campaign spending between $100 and $200 million. The Governator and his buddies starting promoting the passing of these propositions and tons of misinformation and vague half truths filled the airwaves and the print media.

The biggest piece of misinformation put out was that the needy state of California would recieve through this deal a much needed $9 billion dollars. No one ever said how anyone came up with this figure of $9 billion dollars which by the way was to have been recieved over the next twenty years (something barely mentioned by the Tribes or the politicians) or how much more should have been recieved with other deals. No one mentioned that according to the State Of California, we would be lucky to recieve $250 million over the next four years which was not much more that we would have recieved if these propositions had not been passed. No one mentioned the added costs of allowing these thousands of extra slot machines to be put in play, such as additional road work and repairs, additional police, fire and other service costs to the cities and counties around where these casinos are situated. These costs will have to be spent in order to handle the problems that come up when tens of thousands of additional people invade the area in order to play those additional seventeen thousand slot machines.

I could go on and on, but let's just face it. The people of the State of California got taken once again by it's elected representatives.

Some people ask, why would our representatives to this to us. I don't know, could it be the $150 million in contributions already given to these representatives and their favorite projects. Or could it be the $100s of millions more that these representatives hope to recieve from those four Indian Tribes. And maybe it could be the $100s of millions in contributions they hope to recieve in the future from other Indian Tribes that will want the same sweetheart deals.

All I know is that it is our fault that we got taken. Too many California voters trusted our politicians (how gullible can we be?) and, as usual, too many California voters did not bother to do research before they voted. Will the voters of California ever learn? Probably not!

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Legal Resources and Lifestyle Information

According to Official California Voter Information Guide Prop 93 is an initiative Constitutional amendment that

Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years.

Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.

Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house.

Right now a politician's service is restricted to six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms).

Under Prop 93 a politician could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses.

In my opinion Proposition 93 is not a new term limits proposition. Instead it is a way around current term limits. This new proposition would allow politicians to hold on to their seats of power in each house for a much longer period. It allows parties that controll certain areas to keep their control for longer periods and it allows committee chairmen to hold on to those chairmanships for longer periods.

While I am sure that lobbiests and special interest groups love Prop 93, I don't. I urge a no vote on Prop 93.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Get Involved and express yourself at the
Political Legal and Lifestyle Forums

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he must slash aid to poor children and the elderly, shutter state parks, shrink school funding and release 22,000 inmates early to plug a $14 billion deficit.

The governor proposed a $141 billion budget that cuts expenditures on every state program by 10 percent for the fiscal year beginning July 1. The spending plan, which doesn't include tax increases, is down from this year's $145 billion budget. He said he would halt early repayment of $12 billion in deficit bonds sold in 2004 and propose selling an additional $3 billion of the debt to help bridge the current gap.

``It would be wrong to raise taxes on people to cover Sacramento's overspending,'' Schwarzenegger, 60, told reporters in Sacramento. ``We have to control the budget because right now the budget is controlling us.''

Schwarzenegger invoked never-before-used emergency powers that would force lawmakers in the most populous U.S. state to pare $3 billion from the current budget. The Legislature has 45 days to deal with the shortfall. Should lawmakers fail to find a solution in that time, they would be barred from doing any other legislative work or adjourning. Source Bloomberg.com.

First the Governornator backs numerous bond issues putting the State tens of billions of dollars in debt, then he signs ridiculously high budgets into law, then he makes deals with Indian Casino Tribes where they control how much they will pay us and now he says oop's we're out of money so we need to cut the social spending that he approved in previous years. Leave it to Californians to elect a governor like Schwarzenegger.

By the way I'm a Republican but I'd rather vote for anyone rather than Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

By:
Darren Winslow
California Law - Legal Information

There certainly has been a lot in the newspaper and on TV about global warming. In fact, there has been more information on global warming than there ever was on Y2K, which if you'll recall was to be the calamity of all calamities caused by mankind. There were almost as many articles on Y2K in the media as during the Cold War; you remember that of course we were all supposed to die by nuclear holocaust during an exchange of nuclear weapons with Russia.

Perhaps it is time that we get the facts straight about global warming. The global warming alarmist will have you believe that the Earth is heating up and yet what you might not realize is that the world set a global cool weather record in 2007. In fact, 2007 was the coolest in the last 16 years. What does this mean? Is global warming over or did it never really exist? Does the Earth really go through climate fluctuations and cycles and there is really nothing that mankind can do about it?

Or are humans and their activities such as the emissions of CO2 really causing our climate to heat up enough to melt all the ice caps and flood every human civilization that is less than 30 feet above sea level? Isn't it time that humans stop believing everything they see in the media or hear on TV and start looking at the facts, which by the way are not docudramas meant to scare you and make Hollywood millions of dollars on movies. Something to contemplate in 2008.

Let's get the facts straight shall we? In 2007 the World Set global cool weather records. Learn more about the reality behind the Global Cooling:

washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

By: Lance W.
My name is Lance Winslow and I am a semi-retired entrepreneur, retired Franchisor and now I am a consultant brain-4-hire, internet writer and author. I got bored in retirement so I founded the Online Think Tank - http://www.worldthinktank.net.

If you would like to send me an email just to say hi, discuss an article, send me hate mail or need some advice you can find me at; http://www.carwashguys.com/history/founder.html - Have a great day and thanks for reading - tell me about you?

Submitted by:
Josh Truegood
International Issues from Knowledge Is Power

The following is from the California Legislative Analyst's Office regarding California Proposition 94 Gaming Compact Between the State and the Pechanga Tribe. Referendum.

The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians owns a casino in Riverside County with about 2,000 slot machines. The measure ratifies an amendment to the existing gaming compact that would allow the tribe to operate up to 7,500 slot machines. The tribe would make increased payments to the state annually through 2030.

This referendum is basically the same as Props 95, 96 and 97 except that each proposition deals with a different Indian Tribe. The four tribes are Pechanga, Morongo, Sycuan and Agua Caliente. Each tribe is seeking to increase it's alloted number of slot machines by offering to pay a small, yes I said small, amount of money to the State of California.

The tribes claim that allowing them to increase slot machines they will end up paying approximetly $9 billion to the State of California over the next 20 years.

$9 billion sounds like a lot of money but when you break it down it amounts to only $450 million each year or $112.5 million each year per tribe.

The California Legislative Analyst's Office says

Our best estimate is that annual state revenues over the next few years would increase by a net amount of less than $200 million.

or less than $50 million per tribe. This is far less than the Tribes claim.

The four propositions together are asking for an increase of 17,000 slot machines. The income generated from those slot machines will be huge and the amout being offered by the Tribes will most likely be small compared to what the Tribes would have to pay if they were required to pay normal state income taxes like the rest of us.

Additionaly there is no mention of costs to the state that will be incured in widening freeways to handle the increased traffic, increased crime in nearby communities, etc.

I urge everyone to vote no on this referendum. Don't fall for the Tribes' state income inflated projections. It's time we stopped giving the Tribes an almost free ride while they increase gambling in this state.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Political Legal And Lifestyle Forums