Political Frenzy

I remember my first time gambling when I was 18. My friend and I drove for over an hour out into the into the Northern California mountains. We got to Jackson Rancheria Casino, walked inside and within 3 minutes we were out of money. We looked at each other, muttered some choice words about “all Indian casinos” and drove home with our tails between our legs.

Since then I have been to several Indian casinos throughout California and Oregon. All with similar results, the trips usually last under 30 minutes and I have never won a dime. (When I go to Vegas I never lose by the way). But do I care, NO! It was my choice to lose my lunch money at an Indian casino.

California’s Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 all passed on Super Tuesday ensuring California billions of dollars from Indian gaming. The propositions allow Indian casinos to build more slot machines and also raise the amount of money they have to pay to the California government.

As it is with all ‘sin taxes’ this is a hotly debated issue. Some say that Indian casinos are a good source of income for the state because the money is being spent anyways, while others argue that it is wreck less for the state to rely on money from Indian gaming.

It is not wreckless; not tapping this enormous source of money is wreckless given the budget deficits we now face.

When looking at the Governor’s budget it features huge cuts to public education, among other services. We cannot afford to weaken our children’s educations! We don’t want our future leaders to not be able to add 2 plus 2 (although some would say they already can’t). Arnold doesn’t want to cut education but The Governator’s hands are tied. His only other alternative is making good on his campaign promises of making Indian casinos pay their fair share.

Expanding Indian gaming in California is a great idea. It will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in a year that would pay for services such as public education and medical reimbursements. It would make gambling more visible in the state, but it is still up to the consumer to choose to gamble. Making it more readily available does not mean that you have to go do it.

Maybe next time they will author a proposition that will make the games fairer so I can win some money when I go there!!! Losing 10 hands of blackjack in a row with the dealer showing a 6 makes you wonder.