Something is rotten in the State of California

As the vote for propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 approaches - information is surfacing as to how these props will actually (not) benefit the state. Initially they seemed to be the silver bullet for the Governors budget crises, and as the hype grew - giving four casinos almost 20,000 more slot machines would do everything from pump millions into schools to cure arthritis! This of course was not being put out by researchers - it was being pumped by public relations specialists hired by the tribes. Careful scrutiny however reveals a different story, as seen in the SY Valley Journal. Something else to keep in mind: recent history has shown us that an Indian Casino can claim sovereign immunity at any time - and simply do not have to abide by any agreement they enter into.

CASINO REPORT
By India Allen, Staff Writer

With the California State budget still being negotiated and the 2006 Tribal Compacts awaiting approval by California voters in a slugfest characterized by claims from proponents that the compacts will guarantee additional funding for the state’s schools, a new study claims there is no direct connection between compact approvals and funding for public schools.

Strategic Education Services, a Sacramento based lobbying, consulting and advocacy firm, issued an Analysis of the 2006 Tribal Compact and Their Impact on Education Funding. Contrary to various pro-compact campaign advertisements that assert that compact approval will provide billions of dollars to California schools, the study not only claims there is no guarantee that money distributed by tribes from gambling operations will directly benefit California’s public education system, but also that even with extra money coming from Indian tribes as a result of compact approvals, the Governor and State Legislature will most likely distribute the extra money to other programs.

“If approved by voters under the false impression they are voting to ‘provide billions to California schools,’ these gambling compacts could further the misperception that schools are receiving adequate funding from gambling measures -- a measure that already plagues efforts to provide genuine revenue increases to California schools,” reads a statement in the analysis.

Because public school funding is issued and managed through Proposition 98, a school funding formula that derives money for schools through proceeds of taxes, such as property tax, the study further claims that since tribes are sovereign nations, the state cannot levee taxes on their economic ventures. Therefore, compact payments cannot be considered proceeds of taxes and would not be included in a public education funding calculations.

“All revenues from past compacts have been allocated to non-Proposition 98 expenditures,” the analysis states. “There is nothing in these compacts to suggest that such practices will be any different than current policy.”

Roger Salazar, media representative for Yes on 94, 95, 96 and 97, refutes the report’s findings, stating that since 40 percent of California’s general fund is required to go towards public education, an increase in money to the general fund would also increase the amount of money distributed to public education and other programs.

“Any time you put additional resources in the general fund it relieves all areas. I don’t see how adding more money into the general fund wouldn’t benefit schools,” he said. (ed~possibly because that is not your job? YOUR job Mr. Salazar is to sell it to the California voters - not point out the flaws eh?) “It benefits all state programs including schools. It’s a technical argument that Strategic Education Services are trying to make.

“We are not in a position to make the promise, but what we have said is that these agreements will allow $9 Billion over two decades to be applied to the California budget. We’re facing some very tough budget times, and what these tribes are trying to do is contribute to part of the solution.”

Though the Legislature can decide to apply extra money the state receives to education, it has a track record for only applying the minimum 40 percent to schools.

In May 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger added an additional $427 million to the public education fund, which was more than the minimum 40 percent, and the Legislature reduced the funding by that exact amount -- applying only the minimum 40 percent.

The analysis questions how funds from compact agreements would be guaranteed to benefit public education since the legislature historically has applied the minimum 40 percent to schools, regardless of budget revenues.

While Salazar acknowledges this fact, he remains optimistic that the additional money from compacts would be applied toward public education and other vital programs.

“The folks on the other side are trying to do everything they can to mislead the voters to make them think that the compacts will not help the budget,” he said. “While nothing in life is guaranteed, what is guaranteed is that the state will receive hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year to help with its budget problems and fund vital services such as education, and that’s a good thing.” (ed~ such a telling statement~nothing in life is guaranteed, would that include even your "guarantee" Mr. Salazar?)

The Governors Office could not be reached for comment.