On this episode Cynthia and I break down and give our opinion on California Propositions 26 and 27. Two propositions dealing with sports betting in California. What's the difference? Which one is better?
*The California Underground Podcast is dedicated to discussing California politics for people who want to cut through the insanity and get real answers.*
Links Mentioned in the Show
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_27,_Legalize_Sports_Betting_and_Revenue_for_Homelessness_Prevention_Fund_Initiative_(2022)
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_26,_Legalize_Sports_Betting_on_American_Indian_Lands_Initiative_(2022)
Support California Underground on Patreon at www.patreon.com/CaliforniaUnderground
Follow California Underground on Social Media
Instagram: www.instagram.com/californiaunderground
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj8SabIcF4AKqEVFsLmo1jA
Substack: https://substack.com/profile/72986149-ca_underground
Shop California Underground Merchandise: https://california-underground.creator-spring.com
Phil is a San Diego based attorney who specializes in estate planning and constitutional law both under the US and California Constitution. California Underground was created to give a voice and platform for those who don't agree with the prevailing narrative in California which is everything must be solved by bigger government and more taxes.
Review the Anchor.Fm Privacy Policy: Anchor - The easiest way to make a podcast
00:00:06
If you're a California, conservative a Libertarian, a
00:00:09
moderate Democrat. Believe in common sense or just
00:00:12
the same person. This is the political podcast
00:00:15
for you. It's the California underground
00:00:17
podcast. What's going on with everybody
00:00:21
for tuning in to another episode of California underground?
00:00:24
We have a jam-packed show, Cynthia, my trustee fellows is
00:00:28
here with me tonight. No, guess needed, because I
00:00:31
think we have enough content cover.
00:00:33
Just with these two propositions, you've probably
00:00:36
seen them spamming your Airwaves for the past.
00:00:39
I don't know, three or four months, it's a prop, 27, and
00:00:43
prop 26. And a lot of people have been
00:00:46
asking me What the heck is the difference between prop, 26 and
00:00:49
prop 27. Both are supported by
00:00:52
California, tribes, both have to do with sports betting.
00:00:57
But what's the difference in y? Is one saying one's worse and
00:01:01
vice versa, but we're going to get into all that.
00:01:04
We both did our homework, and we got a lot to talk about tonight.
00:01:07
We're going to break it down and I guess we'll give our opinion
00:01:10
to a bill. Like, which one you think is
00:01:11
better? And which one would you maybe
00:01:13
vote for? That's not usually what we do.
00:01:15
But I feel like maybe I would say Give you my opinion, what I
00:01:18
would vote for. But first off.
00:01:20
Cynthia, how are you doing tonight?
00:01:22
I'm doing great. Looking forward to this podcast.
00:01:25
I think we're gonna have a ton go over with.
00:01:29
I know, we both have our links open, so it'll be jam-packed and
00:01:33
looking forward to it. Yeah.
00:01:35
And as I mentioned on the podcast, pre-show just a couple
00:01:39
minutes ago, I am going mostly off this tonight.
00:01:43
So this little booklet is very handy.
00:01:46
It gives you A lot of information, it tells you
00:01:48
exactly what's going to happen and it does give you the
00:01:52
arguments for and against, oh, you can really kind of dive into
00:01:55
these and they're really important for those listening on
00:01:58
audio. It's the general election book.
00:02:00
It comes about this time so it should be arriving in your
00:02:03
mailboxes because ballots are going out already and like a
00:02:07
couple weeks, which is crazy. So they want you to have some
00:02:11
information. Don't throw these out.
00:02:14
These are very important, you know, you're going to get one.
00:02:17
But these are very important, they go through everything and
00:02:20
this is probably going to be all like drawn on highlighted torn
00:02:27
wrinkled by, you know, November 8th, because I'm going to be
00:02:29
using a lot. So now my end I have opened what
00:02:35
the California Democrat Party things with the California
00:02:38
Republican party thinks I have about pedia.
00:02:42
I had the legislative analyst office and then I have the I
00:02:46
also have the Voter guide, but I have the online version.
00:02:52
Excellent. So we got a lot of stuff to talk
00:02:54
about, so let's just jump right in will go in numerical.
00:02:57
Order will start with prop 26, and it is allowing in person,
00:03:03
brouillette dice games Sports wagering on tribal lands
00:03:07
initiative, Constitutional Amendment, and statute.
00:03:10
So you can go look up the full text of this, but in this little
00:03:14
guide, they do go over just the highlights.
00:03:17
And give you sort of the rundown of what's going on here.
00:03:20
It allows federally recognized Indian tribes to operate.
00:03:24
First off, the fact that they're still called Indian tribes in.
00:03:27
These booklets is kind of weird to me, but I thought we were
00:03:29
past that. I thought we were to woke as a
00:03:31
society to say Indian anymore. But whatever, that's how they
00:03:36
wrote it to operate roulette, dice games and sports.
00:03:39
Wagering on site, on tribal lands.
00:03:41
If authorized, by Gaming packs approved by the state allows
00:03:46
Sports, Iran certain license horse tracks imposes, a 10% tax
00:03:51
on Sports. Wagering profits at these tracks
00:03:54
direct revenues to state general, fund 70%.
00:03:57
To the general fund, we're going to talk about more or why to me
00:04:00
that's always a red flag. Whenever you say the words
00:04:02
general fund, that's a huge red flag problem, gambling programs,
00:04:07
get 15 percent of the revenue, and enforcement gets 15% of the
00:04:10
revenue. It also allows private lawsuits
00:04:13
to enforce certain gambling. So it's sort of like the It's
00:04:17
sort of like the Texas abortion law that is the new rage where
00:04:20
you're allowing people to be like their own mini attorney,
00:04:24
generals and file private lawsuits to enforce state law.
00:04:29
So that's sort of the the highlights of it so far.
00:04:36
We can go over a lot more in but Cynthia I want to give you a
00:04:39
chance to kind of chime in right away on Prop 26 and your initial
00:04:42
thoughts on it. So I think you, I'll be honest,
00:04:48
I think you are prep the Bots that are a little bit more
00:04:51
educated on it than me. So, I had to do my due diligence
00:04:55
on it. I'll preface it by saying that
00:04:58
in general, I've been so focused on the candidates.
00:05:02
So I in general, I haven't really had the time to dive into
00:05:05
the bout preposition. So while you're doing your
00:05:08
pre-show, I we were chatting a little bit before that.
00:05:11
My mom wanted to have a discussion about it and it was
00:05:14
just it was funny because She was excited.
00:05:18
She was actually showing me the voter guide that, you know, that
00:05:21
you were that you are also coloring over to and that, for
00:05:25
once, I had to tell her, like, I actually don't have an opinion,
00:05:27
because I'm doing my due diligence, learning about it
00:05:30
too. And in general, I actually
00:05:33
personally don't gamble. So growing up.
00:05:36
Like, you know, people would want to go play Bingo and all
00:05:39
that. So it was just something that I
00:05:41
was never really interested in. However, I realized that, I I
00:05:46
think, you know, how they have those giveaways and whatnot.
00:05:49
I realize like because I participate in those like, I
00:05:52
think I guess it's a form of gambling.
00:05:54
But, yeah, technically, but you know what, there's Wagers or
00:06:00
things of that nature. It's something I don't
00:06:02
participate in, but yeah, I do think it's a little bit weird.
00:06:07
Why we're saying like Native Americans.
00:06:10
It's just, I don't know. I don't know any real human
00:06:14
being that likes Christmas. That's tough.
00:06:18
So in this one, I think if we're going to go off of We're going
00:06:24
to get into prop 27 in a little bit.
00:06:27
This one I think is to give you context, this one is definitely
00:06:32
more. Sponsored by the tribes, the
00:06:37
gambling tribes of California. It's very skewed towards tribes
00:06:43
the benefits, mostly go to tribes.
00:06:46
So there is a tinge of that if that gives you sort of a basic
00:06:51
understanding of it is that prop 27 is mostly supported by
00:06:56
companies like DraftKings and FanDuel.
00:06:59
But this one prop 26 is definitely more geared towards
00:07:03
the tribes. Especially because it only
00:07:06
allows for this to happen in person at tribal casinos.
00:07:12
So, as as opposed to prop 27, which would allow for you to do
00:07:16
sports betting, anywhere in the state of California, as long as
00:07:20
you're over the age of 21, this requires you to actually go to a
00:07:24
tribal Casino. It also adds in and I didn't
00:07:27
know this until tonight. And when I started reading this,
00:07:30
as someone who loves to play craps, it's actually my favorite
00:07:33
game to go play whenever Ever, I go to Vegas or anything like
00:07:37
that. I didn't know that crops was
00:07:40
illegal but this would actually legalized craps because I don't
00:07:44
go to a lot of tribal casinos. I'm trying to stay away from
00:07:48
saying like Indian casinos because that does feel weird.
00:07:51
If they can't name a baseball team after it, I feel like you
00:07:53
can't say anymore in propositions.
00:07:57
But yeah. So it that does add that kind of
00:08:00
and I also didn't know about that you could do this at Horse
00:08:05
tracks. So there are horse tracks where
00:08:07
you can go and you can bet on the horses and they will, I
00:08:10
guess allow Sports books to open at these horse tracks.
00:08:15
So, first off Camila, orti has 26.
00:08:18
Raise our taxes. I will say, it's neither of them
00:08:21
mention raising any taxes at all.
00:08:24
Now, none of them say anything about raising taxes.
00:08:27
The, the purpose is that all the revenue is supposed to go into
00:08:32
or part of the revenue, I should say.
00:08:35
Is going into enforcement and any sort of new regulation or
00:08:39
any sort of regulatory agency, that has to kind of Patrol what
00:08:43
this is doing. The they're both sold as these
00:08:47
are like Wind Falls for the State of California and
00:08:51
therefore we should just approve them because California will be
00:08:55
rolling in the money. Sounds familiar to what we were
00:08:58
promised with legalizing weed, but and that hasn't happened.
00:09:03
So Let's move through a little bit.
00:09:05
A couple of this is something I want to kind of go over as well,
00:09:10
in terms of how it works and just kind of really backing it
00:09:15
up, Really Gonna back it up here.
00:09:16
Cynthia, how do tribes have casinos if gambling is not legal
00:09:23
in California? Did actually breaks it down
00:09:27
here. It says, Native American tribes
00:09:28
have certain rights under federal law, to govern
00:09:31
themselves, such a certain rights to offer camel and This
00:09:34
means that the state generally cannot regulate tribal gambling,
00:09:38
except as Allowed by Juan federal law to federally
00:09:42
approved, agreements between a tribe and the state known as a
00:09:45
tribal State compact. When a tribe wants to offer
00:09:48
gambling on its lands Federal Law requires that the state
00:09:51
negotiate a compact with the tribe.
00:09:53
If the tribe and the state cannot agree.
00:09:56
The federal government May issue a compact instead.
00:09:59
So for this state you really have no leverage because If you
00:10:04
don't come to an agreement with them, they could just go to the
00:10:07
federal government in the government will give them a
00:10:09
compact and allow them to do what they want to do.
00:10:12
But keep that in mind, because that's something that will be
00:10:16
key to both of these propositions is this tribal
00:10:19
State Compact and how that kind of works within our with the
00:10:25
system. And why can you go gamble on
00:10:28
tribal lands? And how come you can't go gamble
00:10:31
and, you know, downtown San Diego Yep.
00:10:39
Sorry taking a sip of soda water to see.
00:10:44
We kind of went over this before.
00:10:45
We'll keep going through some of the highlights and whenever you
00:10:48
want to jump in Cynthia, just let me know.
00:10:52
I'm just kind of going through bolt points to seeing what
00:10:55
you've covered. What haven't however, OT.
00:10:58
The proposition bands bets on certain Sports such as high
00:11:01
school games and games in which California college teams.
00:11:05
I wouldn't even know how to bet on a high school team.
00:11:08
I wouldn't even know who's better or whose worst
00:11:12
requirements on racetracks. You have to be 21 and older 10%
00:11:17
of sports Fest made each day. These payments will go into a
00:11:19
new California Sports wagering fund okay the proposition
00:11:26
include specific requirements for tribal casinos that choose
00:11:29
to offer sports betting. For example sports betting can
00:11:31
be offered on tribal lands only after a tribe changes its
00:11:34
Compact with the state to allow it.
00:11:36
There's that tribal back again, each tribes compact width layout
00:11:39
the requirements, it must follow.
00:11:41
For example, the compact could specify the minimum age to place
00:11:44
a bet required payments to the state and local governments and
00:11:47
whether travel payments will go into the new sees swf.
00:11:51
So you can see the trend is that the tribe has a lot of power in
00:11:54
this already. If you're looking at the
00:11:56
highlights, it does give a lot of power to the tribes, who are
00:11:59
negotiating this now I want to talk about what's going On with
00:12:05
these funds. And this is always crucial when
00:12:10
you were this is crucial whenever you're looking at a
00:12:14
proposition and always look at specifically where the money is
00:12:19
supposed to go. Because the ads will always say,
00:12:23
especially prop, 27 will say, it's going to solve
00:12:27
homelessness, or they're going to have hundreds, millions of
00:12:30
dollars, going to homelessness. That could be part of it but
00:12:36
when you look at it, usually a lot of these propositions dumped
00:12:39
a lot of money into the general fund and the general fund allows
00:12:44
for the legislature to really kind of just do whatever they
00:12:47
want with it. So they can say and this is
00:12:50
always calm and you see oh we're going to raise millions and
00:12:52
millions of dollars with this. If we raise this tax for
00:12:58
firefighters police officers teachers, Parents.
00:13:03
It's always those for that, they always bring up so keep that in
00:13:08
mind. So the remaining monies, after
00:13:11
all their costs and everything would be used in three ways, 15%
00:13:15
for gambling addiction, and mental health programs, and
00:13:17
grants, 15% for sports, betting and gambling enforcement costs
00:13:22
and over 70 percent would go to the state general fund.
00:13:27
So only 30% of this would go to either gambling and Forcement or
00:13:33
to gambling addiction programs. Meanwhile, 70% just goes off to
00:13:36
the general fund. Once it's there has no
00:13:40
designation. Basically legislators can do,
00:13:43
whatever the heck they want with it to me that stands out as a
00:13:47
giant red flag on Prop, 26. They're basically giving a ton
00:13:52
of money to Sacramento to do with what they want.
00:13:58
And we'll get into proper 27 later and why I think prop 27s
00:14:02
distribution is a little bit better but that should scare you
00:14:06
right off the bat. So whenever He says, o prop 26
00:14:10
is better because it goes towards gambling.
00:14:13
Forcing an addiction, you can say, well, did you know 70% of
00:14:16
the money's after all the expenses, and everything goes to
00:14:19
the general fund and they're going to say, well what's the
00:14:21
general fund? General fund is basically
00:14:23
whatever they want to do with it, whether they want to spend
00:14:25
it on. I don't know.
00:14:27
They can spend on New Roads or they can spend it on education
00:14:31
for your kids about what it means to transition into another
00:14:35
gender. I mean, that's basically where
00:14:37
we're at. I think an important note thing
00:14:42
too, is it when it wouldn't surprise people as we're talking
00:14:46
about, the fiscal aspect of this proposition, shouldn't surprise
00:14:50
people that the California Republican party, opposes it.
00:14:54
What's interesting to note is the California.
00:14:56
Democrat Party has a neutral stance on it.
00:14:59
Their reasoning is it would authorize new types of gambling?
00:15:04
That's what it says on their official democratic Proposition
00:15:07
on their website interest in surprising.
00:15:12
That the California Democratic probably wouldn't pick.
00:15:14
At least one of these maybe we could.
00:15:18
Do you know if they had a stance on 27 or they're just neutral on
00:15:21
both of them. They did have a stamps on 27,
00:15:25
they said, no. And there's a reason for that.
00:15:28
So happy to share that when we talk about 27 but they did take
00:15:31
a stance and they are no on 27, interesting?
00:15:35
Okay. Okay, so increase State
00:15:37
revenues, this is sort of the fiscal effects, one of the sub
00:15:40
headers prop 26 would increase State revenues from Racetrack
00:15:46
and trouble sports, betting as well.
00:15:47
Civil penalties this size of this increase is uncertain, but
00:15:50
but could reach tens of millions of dollars annually.
00:15:53
Some of this Revenue would be new, so that means that it's not
00:15:57
already in cycle. It means it's, we're getting new
00:16:00
streams of income coming into the state coffers, for example,
00:16:05
the state currently, He does not receive any share of illegal
00:16:09
Sports bets. This means the state would
00:16:12
receive new Revenue when people make Sports bets legally, rather
00:16:17
than illegally. What does that remind you of
00:16:22
that passed about four years ago what was illegal and made legal
00:16:32
and all of a sudden they said it was going to be this big green
00:16:37
Rush of money into Sacramento. What was that?
00:16:42
It also starts with C. Since we're talking about
00:16:44
casinos it does also start with C, it goes by several names, the
00:16:49
sticky icky, you know the the sticky a game on you, flowers,
00:16:57
you know, all that stuff marijuana.
00:17:00
But yeah, this MJ, this is what was promised with cannabis back
00:17:08
when it was passed about Four years ago and I can tell you
00:17:14
that it has not come to fruition as to what they said, it was
00:17:19
going to happen, they did not see an enormous amount of
00:17:22
Revenue and if you have a chance, I always recommend.
00:17:27
Go watch horror Haven Torres, documentary, cartel, Ville over.
00:17:32
I think it's you can go look it up online.
00:17:34
He has it up on his webpage but go check it out because it's
00:17:37
really interesting documentary. All about The illegal grows that
00:17:42
are happening in Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County.
00:17:47
And the reason is, is because they made it so prohibitive in
00:17:54
the state of California because California couldn't let it go to
00:17:56
waste, they had to regulate it and tax it to death like they do
00:18:00
everything and they ruined a perfectly good opportunity with
00:18:03
cannabis and most of it went back into the black market.
00:18:07
And in fact, the last estimate I saw was that the black Actually
00:18:10
tripled since passage of legalizing marijuana in the
00:18:15
state of California. So it sounds like it's the same
00:18:19
promise as before which is well if we just legalize sports
00:18:23
betting on these tribal lands then we're going to make all the
00:18:28
money. Not these illegal bookies and
00:18:31
stuff like that even though there might be fees and stuff
00:18:34
added on tha your sports bets and all that because it's
00:18:37
California, you can't let you can't let a good thing go to
00:18:40
waste. Without getting a little bit of
00:18:41
taxes out of it. Yep, I agree duty to do and see
00:18:49
what else I highlight it. Increase state regulatory cost
00:18:54
total cost for this additional work, could reach the low tens
00:18:57
of millions of dollars annually. Okay, let's look at the argument
00:19:04
in favor of prop 26, going to read from you.
00:19:08
What the argument is in your general election parts of it.
00:19:12
I'm not going to read the entire thing.
00:19:14
Argument in favor of prop 26 for over two decades, California
00:19:18
voters, have stood, with Indian tribes, granting them the right
00:19:22
to operate highly regulated gaming on tribal land.
00:19:26
Indian gaming has helped lift tribes out of poverty creating
00:19:29
jobs and Revenues for critical tribal services, such as
00:19:32
Education, Health Care, housing, Public Safety, cultural
00:19:35
preservation and more, that sounds pretty good.
00:19:40
Yeah, prop 26, will increase funds for Revenue, sharing
00:19:44
agreements, that provide tens of millions every year to
00:19:46
Californians, smaller, poor, Indian tribes.
00:19:51
Okay. So I think that's sort of how
00:19:53
it's always worked with Indian gambling, or tribal gambling, is
00:19:57
that they kind of take the money and put it into a pool.
00:20:00
Her own kind of shares It Maybe I'm Wrong on that prop. 26 will
00:20:05
legalize Sports wagering in a controlled manner at highly
00:20:08
regulated tribal casinos and license.
00:20:10
Horse racing facilities, requiring Sports.
00:20:13
Wagering in person provides the strongest age verification
00:20:17
safeguards to prevent underage gambling and protections against
00:20:21
problem gambling. On the other hand, prop 27 would
00:20:24
legalize online and mobile Sports gambling in California.
00:20:28
Turning virtually every cell phone tablet.
00:20:31
And laptop into a gambling device, increasing the risk of
00:20:34
underage and problem, gambling. We respectfully ask you to vote.
00:20:37
Yes. On Prop 26.
00:20:39
And no on Prop 2700. I missed one part.
00:20:44
According to the nonpartisan legislative analyst's, prop 26
00:20:47
will generate tens of millions of dollars annually for Vital
00:20:49
services. Such as public schools
00:20:51
homelessness and mental health programs, Wildfire prevention,
00:20:55
senior services, and other state priorities.
00:20:58
I didn't see that in the breakdown.
00:21:01
That's probably them assuming that because it's going into the
00:21:06
general fund that it will somehow trickle down to these
00:21:10
people which is usually what they say.
00:21:13
And they say, oh it provides it. Like I said, they'll say oh it
00:21:17
provides it for Public Schools, teachers First Responders and
00:21:21
all that stuff? Sure, maybe I don't know.
00:21:25
I mean if you put it all in a big pot it may end up there
00:21:28
eventually but No guarantee. It's not like it's been
00:21:32
earmarked for any of those things.
00:21:34
So that's the argument in favor prop 26.
00:21:37
Any thoughts on that Cynthia? Might, well my thoughts is so I
00:21:45
actually so I already to have an opinion on the proposition, so I
00:21:53
so I'll just be direct right now.
00:21:54
I wouldn't I personally oppose it.
00:21:58
So when they were mentioning that, you know, it's this it's I
00:22:03
I always my whole thing is when you begin a slippery soap it's
00:22:09
very very hard for it to Ends and you know what as you were
00:22:13
you know, reading out loud. You know the arguments in
00:22:16
support of it I already you know saw the writing on the wall per
00:22:19
se. So for example I'm glad you
00:22:22
brought up you know Jorge's documentary you know regardless
00:22:26
of what people's opinions are on as Margaret would work would say
00:22:30
the devil's lettuce it. There's no denying that you know
00:22:35
with anything that happens there's consequences and you
00:22:37
know as a result of you know legalizing that At and again
00:22:43
like as you've also have alluded to choose like there was a
00:22:45
similar proposition where the state of California would
00:22:49
benefit from the revenue of that.
00:22:51
And then some way or another, you know, because of giving that
00:22:55
regulation and allowing that for the state government, you know,
00:22:59
I saw a lot of issues with that. So that's, you know, my initial
00:23:03
reactions to those arguments in support of it.
00:23:08
It pretty much affirms where I stand As is I don't, you know,
00:23:15
with all the regulations, whatnot, I guess, you know,
00:23:20
they're making it seem like, oh, it will make things better, or
00:23:22
that would make it. I don't know.
00:23:26
It's a little weird that lead support it just off the bat.
00:23:30
Those are my chances. Cynthia, is going to take the
00:23:32
the true libertarian stance which is if there is a chance
00:23:37
that even one person is hired as a public employee.
00:23:41
I'm voting. Now, if it increases the size of
00:23:45
government by one person, I'm going to vote in them is not
00:23:49
about raw. I'm Ron Swanson for the night,
00:23:53
exactly. You're going to be Ron Swanson
00:23:55
for the night. I mean, this proposition, both.
00:24:00
These propositions should just be like, it was Kevin paffrath
00:24:03
right? Who advocated for legalizing
00:24:06
gambling, basically everywhere in California.
00:24:08
He dead. I mean, I don't hate that idea,
00:24:11
let's just open it up, everywhere in California, let it
00:24:14
let it roll. But then, of course they have to
00:24:17
add in the king's Ransom in both of these, which is well, we're
00:24:22
going to make millions of millions of dollars and of
00:24:24
course, we're going to give millions and millions of dollars
00:24:26
to the state. That's the king's ransom, they
00:24:28
got to get their pound of Flesh. We're also going to pay for the
00:24:31
Regulatory and all that stuff as opposed to just saying, well,
00:24:35
we're just going to legalize gambling, and we're just going
00:24:37
to let it roll because California could.
00:24:40
Just let that happen. They'd have to figure out how to
00:24:42
build an entire new state regulatory system to.
00:24:46
I don't know, hire hundreds of more people and put them on the
00:24:48
state do. But the argument against prop
00:24:50
26, I'll give it. Read you.
00:24:54
Some highlights from that five wealthy tribal casinos are
00:24:58
sponsoring prop 26 to expand their money or Monopoly over
00:25:03
gambling in California. So they can make billions more
00:25:06
profits and continue to pay a virtually nothing in state.
00:25:09
Taxes. Oh no.
00:25:12
Horror of perils the horror of not paying any state taxes.
00:25:17
Despite state laws that make it illegal for anyone under 21 to
00:25:21
gamble. One of the sponsors of prop 26
00:25:23
regularly allows 18 year olds to gamble in nothing in there
00:25:27
measure stops underage gamblers and betting on College and
00:25:29
professional sports in a tribal Casino.
00:25:33
I heard that before. That one of the casinos that
00:25:35
backs it allows underage, or they've been caught, like,
00:25:39
allowing underage. Gambling.
00:25:40
I don't know if they still do but it might be a might have
00:25:43
been a problem in the past. If the sponsor is a prop 26 are
00:25:46
allowed to put card clubs out of business.
00:25:48
Some of the state's hardest-hit communities of color will lose
00:25:51
500 million dollars in local tax revenue, that pays for essential
00:25:54
services like police fire Healthcare.
00:25:57
And after school Services of again the for the you should
00:26:02
just call them the Four Horsemen of the tearing at your
00:26:04
heartstrings because that's always what they mentioned.
00:26:07
These communities will lose thirty two thousand jobs.
00:26:09
Mine wage and 5.6 and economic output vote, no on Prop 2600 and
00:26:16
they mentioned vote. No on Prop 26 because they're
00:26:21
going to keep horse tracks in business and it gives them
00:26:25
millions of new Revenue just to save a dying industry, that
00:26:27
drugs abuse and kills horses year after year.
00:26:31
So, if you want to save the horses but no, I'm 26.
00:26:37
That's it for, at this point. That's it for this.
00:26:40
Anybody in the chat, if you want to chime in, would you vote for
00:26:45
prop, 26? Knowing what you heard tonight?
00:26:48
Just let us know in the comments section.
00:26:50
Maybe give us a reason as well. You already said what your
00:26:56
position on it is. my position is, It's tough.
00:27:04
The, you know, the degenerate Gambler and may likes the idea
00:27:07
of playing craps in California, but it also probably likes the
00:27:11
idea of just keeping craps in Vegas.
00:27:15
I do feel like this is skewed one way.
00:27:18
I feel like it is very skewed towards the tribes.
00:27:22
I mean, they wrote this, this is their baby.
00:27:25
So obviously it is skewed towards them.
00:27:29
The 70% of the revenue, going to, the general fund.
00:27:34
Just that to me is always a red flag because you can claim, it's
00:27:42
for one thing or another. But in reality, it's probably
00:27:46
just going to get wasted anyway. You know, it's going to go in
00:27:49
the general fund, California will find a way to waste it.
00:27:53
So in the end you're just throwing money at Sacramento and
00:27:57
they're going to figure out how to, you know, just throw it down
00:28:00
the tubes or something. So that to me I think is what
00:28:03
Make me say no on Prop 26 is because not a lot goes to
00:28:08
gambling addiction or anything else.
00:28:11
That really helps. They're going to wrap it up in
00:28:13
like, oh, prop 26. We we're going to give Millions
00:28:17
to all these great things, but again, like I said, it goes into
00:28:21
the general fund whether it ends up in those things or not, who
00:28:26
knows? I mean, it could end up in a
00:28:28
whole multitude of ways. So I would be no on 26 as well.
00:28:34
So I think it's on that but for different reasons.
00:28:38
Absolutely, I think another General stance that I hold is I
00:28:43
actually I perhaps maybe differ with the average Republican and
00:28:48
conservative in the sense of like I actually because we live
00:28:52
in a state of California. There's a lots of great things
00:28:54
that we can do to improve the state.
00:28:56
I actually would not mind paying higher taxes, if I knew that
00:29:00
those Resources were getting allocated accordingly.
00:29:04
If I knew like it was going towards something great and if I
00:29:06
knew that the people in charge were actually good, I would not
00:29:09
mind stewarding my resources and forking it over.
00:29:13
If I knew it would make our state better, but the reality
00:29:15
is, these people have proven that, they're not capable of
00:29:18
that. Now, who knows?
00:29:21
If I knew they were doing a good job, could be different, but
00:29:25
it's just, I already can see the writing on the wall.
00:29:29
I mean, we saw it with, you know, the MJ stuff, lots of
00:29:33
different, lots of different slippery, soaps, definitely.
00:29:37
Don't trust these people in Sacramento to do what's right?
00:29:42
And, you know, being able to allocate these resources to
00:29:45
where I think it could improve things, you know, within the
00:29:48
state and just in general to, I mean we've seen in the past
00:29:53
where there's different resolutions and propositions
00:29:56
where they say like, you know, this money is going to go here
00:30:00
and 9. And it's never really does.
00:30:03
I mean, our roads are still crappy.
00:30:05
We still have homelessness. So you know, I I think we
00:30:09
definitely agree on that sense also but yeah, I'm also a no on
00:30:14
Prop 26 as at this juncture. So there you go.
00:30:18
To nose on Prop 26, sorry prop 26.
00:30:23
You have to know voters right now and it looks like a lot of
00:30:26
people in the comments as well are also now.
00:30:30
So let's move on to prop. 27, the one I think that kind of, I
00:30:34
feel like prop, 27 is like the more it's got more focus on it
00:30:39
because it's either, yes, or no. On Prop 27, you either see the
00:30:43
ads? Yes.
00:30:43
On Prop 27, although they have backed off spending and ads.
00:30:48
I saw Rob priors retweet that. So I don't know if that means
00:30:53
that maybe they see the writing on the wall.
00:30:55
The prop 27 is not doing well in the polls.
00:30:57
So they're going to back off on their ad spending But I haven't
00:31:02
seen as many prop 27 recently, as I did like, over the summer
00:31:06
where I was like every commercial was about prop, 27,
00:31:10
followed by an ad against prop 27.
00:31:14
Now, all I get is Matt Gunderson and Katherine Blake spear so and
00:31:19
then I get in the mail as well like it, Catherine, Blake Spear
00:31:21
and Mac understand. So those are two people running
00:31:24
for state senate. So that's all I'm getting right
00:31:27
now in on my TV and in my, in my mail.
00:31:31
Prop 27. Let's read the highlights,
00:31:33
legalizes online and Sport, and mobile Sports, wagering for
00:31:37
persons, 21 years, and older, such wagering may be offered
00:31:41
only by federally recognized Indian tribes.
00:31:43
There's that word again and eligible businesses, that
00:31:46
contract with them requires licensing, fees, and imposes,
00:31:50
10% tax on Sports, wagering revenues.
00:31:52
So, there's a 10% tax on the revenues Direct Tax and
00:31:57
Licensing. Revenues first two regulatory
00:31:58
cost then remainder to Listen, this programs 85%.
00:32:03
So 85% is already earmarked towards homelessness programs
00:32:08
and non-participating tribes 15%.
00:32:11
So non-participating tribes are those who are they?
00:32:13
Don't have any casinos, they don't have anything like that.
00:32:16
So those tribes that are non gaming tribes would get 15
00:32:20
percent of the revenue of prop, 27.
00:32:26
Let's see, talk about sports betting, again tribal State
00:32:30
compacts, State, homeless, housing, assistance, and
00:32:33
prevention program. H, H AP, we'll just call it hap
00:32:38
for short hap provides funding to local entities such as cities
00:32:42
and tribes to help them achieve their goals related to
00:32:45
addressing homelessness currently 80 percent of hap
00:32:48
funds. Go to local entities generally
00:32:50
based on their share of the state's homeless population, 2%
00:32:54
to tribes and 18% to the state to provide bonuses to local
00:32:58
entities and tribes who meet their goals.
00:33:00
The Received 1 billion in state funds last year, the proposal of
00:33:06
prop 27 would allow bets on athletic events such as football
00:33:11
games and some not athletic events such as award shows and
00:33:16
video game competition. So, if you want to vote on the
00:33:19
Oscars, whether or not Chris Rock is going to get smacked in
00:33:22
the face, you could probably do that with this new with this new
00:33:26
proposition. However, it bans bets on certain
00:33:29
other events such as High School.
00:33:31
Games and elections again as our friend, Cory already pointed
00:33:35
out. If your buddy on high school
00:33:37
games, you have a much bigger problem.
00:33:39
Yeah. You're not going.
00:33:41
You're not trying to go to some legal route to bed on high
00:33:44
school. You probably have a much bigger
00:33:47
problem, the proposition requires tribes to give up some
00:33:51
of their rights under federal law to get a license.
00:33:53
Now right there, you could probably see why the tribes the
00:33:57
big drives. The gaming tribes are not in
00:34:00
favor of That's because they would have to give up some of
00:34:03
their rights under federal law, which is that blanket that kind
00:34:06
of protects them. For example, tribes must agree
00:34:09
to a certain amount of State regulation.
00:34:13
So probably, they're probably not happy about that if they
00:34:16
want to play. And this is sort of the contrast
00:34:19
that I was talking about were prop. 26, was definitely skewed
00:34:23
more towards the tribes where they sort of controlled it, and
00:34:27
they could figure it out, and they would negotiate with the
00:34:30
state, their new tribal State. Compacts, this one on the other
00:34:33
hand, is if the tribes want to participate, they would have to
00:34:38
work with this other entity and they don't seem like they're in
00:34:41
control. Right there, I think is one
00:34:45
reason you probably see the tribal, the big tribes are not
00:34:48
very happy about prop 27, license.
00:34:51
Gambling companies could offer sports betting under their own
00:34:54
name or brand. These companies must partner
00:34:57
with a tribe with a tribal State compact proposition limits
00:35:00
licenses to larger companies, such as those that online sports
00:35:04
betting licenses at least 10 or US states or territories.
00:35:08
So Draft Kings or FanDuel. So basically, DraftKings or
00:35:12
vandals the two. Biggest online sports betting,
00:35:14
would be allowed to operate. Let's see, a with him on, say,
00:35:21
I'm subtracting expenses, these expenses include one.
00:35:24
Any bets made with credits from promotional offers two prize
00:35:27
payments and three Federal gambling taxes.
00:35:31
So this is something that they brought up as well, just kind
00:35:34
of, I'm going to try and Really kind of explain this
00:35:40
promotional. So like if you sign on and you
00:35:43
see the commercial or it's like Kevin Hart's, like if you sign
00:35:45
up the Draft Kings, now you get two hundred dollars in credits,
00:35:50
that would be a write-off under this that they wouldn't have to
00:35:54
pay into the system so they could write that off.
00:35:58
So for every person who signs up to DraftKings, new person $200
00:36:03
you know, 100 people sign up.
00:36:05
That's how many I don't know what's the math.
00:36:09
Two hundred dollars times 100 anybody know, two
00:36:12
million is a two million now, 20 million.
00:36:15
I don't know. But anyway, that's why I became
00:36:17
a lawyer. I'm sorry says correct.
00:36:20
So 20 million. Is it 20 million?
00:36:23
Thank you Corey. So yeah, they could then write
00:36:25
off 20 million and that they wouldn't have to pay.
00:36:27
And so that's something that they kind of pointed out saying
00:36:30
they could get around paying a lot of money because they could
00:36:33
just give out a lot of these promotional credits.
00:36:39
Specifically tried must pay 10 million, when it's five years
00:36:42
late since is approved. That's a lot of money for a
00:36:45
tribe to kind of push out. Yep, it creates a new trust
00:36:52
fund. The online sports betting, or
00:36:54
the new California online sports, betting, trust fund,
00:36:58
proper requires revenues. First be used for state
00:37:01
regulatory costs, and the rest would be used for two major
00:37:03
purposes 85% to address homelessness, and for gambling
00:37:06
addiction programs, the money to address.
00:37:08
Homelessness would be provided and local entities generally in
00:37:11
the same way as hat funding and then 15% for tribes.
00:37:15
There are not involved in online.
00:37:16
Sports, betting tribes, could use these funds for tribal
00:37:19
government Health Economic Development or other purposes
00:37:23
and then it creates a new regulatory unit, which Cynthia
00:37:27
is not a fan of anything that creates.
00:37:29
At least one more public. Worker is unacceptable.
00:37:35
Did you do the penalty? Oh, this is new as well. well,
00:37:38
if you're caught illegally, Placing a sports, bet the
00:37:44
penalty equals fifteen percent of the amount that they bet
00:37:47
which is not really. I mean, if you only met like 20
00:37:50
bucks on a football game, that's not really that much.
00:37:53
However, it also allows for a thousand dollar penalty for each
00:37:56
day. This money is not paid so that
00:37:58
could add up really quickly. Whoo.
00:38:03
And we felt like my knees, bless you?
00:38:05
Any thoughts before I go into the two arguments?
00:38:13
Yeah, I mean already, like when they mention like 0, 85 percent
00:38:18
will go towards homelessness, my favorite emoji that I like to
00:38:23
have used as the red flag Emoji. Why would we believe that?
00:38:28
That was my first initial thing. Yeah.
00:38:31
And the only thing I like better about this one than prop 26, is
00:38:37
at least. It doesn't Nate's that 85% has
00:38:40
to go to homelessness. As opposed to prop 26 that says
00:38:45
go, it goes to the general fund and maybe a couple bucks trickle
00:38:49
down to homelessness or schools or firefighters or drag queen
00:38:54
Story Hour you know like it's that's what I think I like
00:38:58
better about this one. Then prop 26 is that it is
00:39:02
earmarked. Basically all of its earmarked
00:39:04
either for homelessness or four tribes that are not
00:39:07
participating in online sports betting.
00:39:10
Agreed. So you brought up the California
00:39:13
Democratic party says no on this.
00:39:17
That is correct now. So what is interesting to note
00:39:22
is that both the California Republican and Democrat Party
00:39:26
opposed this. I think for the obvious reason
00:39:30
for the Republican party, as Corey had mentioned basically a
00:39:33
slush fund to Sacramento. I would argue I guess I would we
00:39:36
would presume in the website. They didn't give specifics, but
00:39:41
we can safely assume. It's probably for the fiscal
00:39:44
parts of it for the Democrat Party.
00:39:47
They Arno he do to Alice State Corporations taking 90 percent
00:39:52
of the money no real California investment.
00:39:55
Our jobs and fifty plus California tribes opposed.
00:40:00
So very interesting how both the major parties are in alignment
00:40:06
on this. Hmm, it's often very rare when
00:40:10
you see both of them aligned, usually for different reasons.
00:40:13
Camille as 85%. What As prop, 27 requires
00:40:19
various sports, betting payments to the state, for example,
00:40:22
tribes and gambling companies, with sports, pay licenses must
00:40:25
pay, 10% of sports. Bets made each month to the
00:40:28
state after subtracting various expenses.
00:40:31
Such as the ones that we were describing losses, which result
00:40:36
when expenses are more than bets.
00:40:38
May be used to offset these payments.
00:40:40
A portion of these monthly payments must be made in advance
00:40:43
when the sports betting license is approved or renewed, So there
00:40:49
you go. So it's not 85% of all the money
00:40:53
made. I mean, it's not going to be 85
00:40:55
percent of all the profits. It's going to be 85% of the
00:40:59
percentage that goes to the state, but they can chip away at
00:41:03
it with these expenses such as promotional prize money or
00:41:08
federal gambling taxes. So, I could see the argument
00:41:13
that it would chip away at whatever's left over there, may
00:41:17
not be Much left in the end but then again, you know, prop 26
00:41:26
just gives all your money to Sacramento anyway.
00:41:29
So depends on where you want to earmarked.
00:41:33
All right, argument in favor of prop, 27, let's hear it.
00:41:39
Look at my book on now. I'm pressing buttons, I don't
00:41:41
mean to press nonprofit leaders mayor's in California, tribes
00:41:45
support Procter & 7 because it will provide hundreds of
00:41:47
millions of dollars in permanent.
00:41:49
Into homelessness, mental health and addiction.
00:41:52
All funding will be subject to strict Audits and oversight to
00:41:55
ensure it is spent effectively prop train, 7 requires mandatory
00:42:00
audits to ensure homelessness and mental health funding is
00:42:03
spent effectively prop, 27 is the only sports betting measure
00:42:07
that will fund permanent homelessness and how Mental
00:42:10
Health Solutions. Prop 27 is the only measure that
00:42:13
guarantees funding for disadvantaged drives So, those
00:42:18
are some highlights from the argument Fair.
00:42:20
There's a whole bunch of quotes as well.
00:42:21
I didn't want to go into the quotes because the people who
00:42:25
wrote the argument, also wrote the quotes as well.
00:42:27
Some the CEO of San Diego's Regional task force, actually
00:42:33
Regional task force on homelessness had a quote about
00:42:37
homelessness. All right, you ready for the
00:42:39
argument against prop, 27. Sure.
00:42:43
Did we do? We share about the fiscal
00:42:45
effects of it. I'm jumping ahead prop, 27 would
00:42:53
increase State revenues from sports, betting payments, and
00:42:55
penalties. The size of this increase is on
00:42:57
certain the increase could be in the hundreds of millions of
00:43:01
dollars annually. But likely would not be more
00:43:04
than 500 million annually. Some of this Revenue would be
00:43:07
new, for example. The state currently does not
00:43:09
receive any share of illegal sports betting online, which we
00:43:13
talked about before. However, some of this Revenue
00:43:16
would be new, for example, the state currently, receives
00:43:18
Revenue, when people spend money on certain things such as
00:43:21
lottery, games are shopping. This means the state might not
00:43:25
receive new Revenue when people spend less on those things so
00:43:28
they could make Sports bets. State revenues from sports,
00:43:32
betting payments and penalties will go into the kasbah, the
00:43:36
California and is a long acronym.
00:43:38
California online sports, betting, trust fund and then we
00:43:42
talked about that, what it would go for, and it would create a
00:43:45
regulatory system. Total cost of this work could
00:43:49
reach made tens of millions of dollars annually.
00:43:53
Prop, controlling 7, could result in other physical effects
00:43:56
in the state and local governments, for example, state
00:43:58
and local Revenue could increase from people coming from out of
00:44:00
Date to play sports betting spending more than they would
00:44:03
otherwise. So you know if you're a tourist
00:44:07
and you just happen to end up in California for some reason and
00:44:10
you're walking down the beautiful Streets of San
00:44:13
Francisco and you step over a pile of crap and you think about
00:44:17
your favorite crappy sports. Team you go, maybe I'll make a
00:44:20
sports bet that could be how you increase Revenue in the state of
00:44:25
California. However some are all this
00:44:28
increased, local Revenue could be offset.
00:44:30
For example, tribes might ask for their tribal State complex
00:44:32
require less payment and yeah so just more uncertainty it could
00:44:39
raise costs. We don't know, we don't know
00:44:42
what it would be. Anything to add.
00:44:46
So Corey said propped for the comment section prop 26 would
00:44:51
result result in more Revenue to the state but not nearly as much
00:44:55
as prop 27. I could see that and then he
00:45:01
also said, it's completely disingenuous.
00:45:04
They just want to give a little back to the state while pocking
00:45:07
the huge profits off expanding gambling.
00:45:09
Everywhere in the state. He also noted, that prop, 27 is
00:45:13
being managed by Nathan click, Gavin.
00:45:15
Newsom is consultant Interesting.
00:45:23
I wonder if that's a because Nathan or how I get them
00:45:27
confused Nathan Fletcher and avenues.
00:45:33
I wonder if that's because old Noodles isn't like as up and up
00:45:39
as he is about being as Progressive as he is and can
00:45:42
talk doing a lot of money in the background.
00:45:44
So this is just one of his guys who Helps them make D Monet in
00:45:49
the background. Yep.
00:45:51
So I don't know if that's really because it's a woke proposition.
00:45:55
Or it's a, I want to make money proposition for the new, some
00:45:59
camping or the Newsome team. I should say not the new, some
00:46:03
campaign. All right, argument against prop
00:46:07
27. Join California, Indian tribes
00:46:12
parents, teachers homeless Advocates, Public Safety.
00:46:15
Leaders priests people who help old ladies across the street Boy
00:46:21
Scouts fireman. Did I say policeman?
00:46:28
No, I don't know. Those last like six we're not in
00:46:30
there but I'm just saying they name everybody.
00:46:32
Who sounds really really like good people vote.
00:46:36
No on 27 the corporate online game.
00:46:38
We proposition prop. 27 is a deceptive seeing written in
00:46:41
promoted by out-of-state. Corporations to legalize online
00:46:45
and mobile Sports gambling. California.
00:46:48
It won't solve homelessness but it will turn virtually every
00:46:51
cell phone tablet and laptop into a gambling device.
00:46:55
Okay. So the attorney and me has to
00:46:59
look at how this is worded and go.
00:47:02
And pick this apart. Yep, I don't think they ever
00:47:06
promised. They were going to solve
00:47:08
homelessness with prop 27. They said there's going to be a
00:47:12
lot of money going to homelessness, but I don't think
00:47:15
they ever said they were going to solve homelessness, which I
00:47:18
think is a big difference. Because they're just kind of
00:47:24
being deceptive in the sense of now they're being deceptive
00:47:27
saying, well they're not going to solve homelessness with this.
00:47:30
Well, I don't think anyone said they were going to solve
00:47:32
homelessness. Proponents are deceptively
00:47:36
marketing, prop 27 as a solution, and they put it in
00:47:40
their quotes to homelessness. But just like, when we were told
00:47:45
the state lottery would be a solution for public education.
00:47:47
We can't believe these false promises.
00:47:51
Okay, So what I take away from this is one their kind of
00:47:59
twisting their words I don't think they ever said it was a
00:48:01
solution for homelessness. They can throw a lot of money
00:48:04
almost knows which may help. It's not going to solve
00:48:06
everything, it's not like prop 27th, going to pass and then all
00:48:09
of a sudden, the next day, homelessness is going to be gone
00:48:12
and we're all going to look back and go, boy.
00:48:14
I wonder what fixed homelessness in California.
00:48:16
It was prop, 27. It was all that online.
00:48:19
Sports gambling, thank you. You gamblers who Like to bet on
00:48:23
Sports, you solve homelessness. I also like but like just when
00:48:29
we're told the state lottery would be a solution for public
00:48:31
education. Can't believe these false
00:48:32
promises. Okay so whoever wrote this
00:48:37
believes that the state lottery was a false promise meaning that
00:48:44
the state lied to the people that this was going to be some
00:48:48
magic cure-all. So they don't believe this is a
00:48:52
solution for homelessness, but they also believe that the state
00:48:54
lied to you when they set up the state lottery system.
00:48:58
Which I think is, interesting. Hmm, did you do they keep going
00:49:04
on and on, not a single time, would fund State priorities,
00:49:06
like public schools, firefighting, or even problem,
00:49:09
gambling prevention programs. Right?
00:49:13
Because all of their money is either earmark for homelessness,
00:49:18
or to disadvantaged tribes. Conversely, not any of the money
00:49:25
in prop 26 is necessarily earmarked for public schools
00:49:28
firefighting or any of these other things.
00:49:31
So doesn't I don't really I don't think that argument.
00:49:39
I mean, they're trying to say that just because they don't
00:49:41
support these things and again it's the The Four Horsemen of
00:49:44
pulling on your Heartstrings. I don't think that's really a
00:49:49
knock against them. When all of their money is
00:49:51
already earmarked for something else, California has already
00:49:54
spent over thirty billion dollars to address homelessness
00:49:57
in the last five years, but things have only gotten worse.
00:50:02
Okay, so now you're admitting that the state is not very good
00:50:07
at managing money. Right.
00:50:11
Yep. And these are probably the same
00:50:13
people who say, vote, Yes, on Prop 26.
00:50:17
So on Prop 26. Give your money. 70% of it to
00:50:20
the government because they know how to spend it but also 30
00:50:23
billion, dollars managed by the government is not enough to
00:50:27
address homelessness of by the government.
00:50:30
A recent report by the independent state auditor said
00:50:32
California spending on, homelessness is destroying.
00:50:34
It has not fulfilled, its most critical responsibilities do to
00:50:39
do. I think that's basically it.
00:50:44
Oh, there's this rebuttal to the argument against prop 27, the
00:50:47
state's independent budget. Watchdog found only prop, 27
00:50:51
will generate hundreds of millions of dollars each year to
00:50:53
address homelessness mental health addiction Prop, 27
00:50:57
spending must be spent on creating housing and providing
00:50:59
services like mental health and addiction treatment.
00:51:02
Cool. Well, that's it for me.
00:51:06
Good night, everybody. No.
00:51:07
Just kidding. Cynthia on that.
00:51:11
Do you have anything else to add?
00:51:12
That was just sort of the rundown from my handy dandy
00:51:15
little book. Yeah, well I thought of another
00:51:19
thing to, I was kind of reflecting on, you know, site
00:51:22
from the fiscal aspects of it, which is, you know, part of the
00:51:26
reason why I personally would be against proposition 27 and 26,
00:51:31
but also like what I thought was interesting to note is for both
00:51:35
of them. You know, they had intentions of
00:51:38
trying to resolve issues in the state and the biggest thing that
00:51:41
stood out to me was they were trying to allocate some kind of
00:51:43
funds to homelessness, obviously.
00:51:46
Jason was a lot more direct about it whereas 26 was a little
00:51:49
bit more discreet. I mean I would imagine like if
00:51:56
you're someone that has some kind of addiction, like I would
00:52:00
imagine that kind of leads to homelessness.
00:52:02
So I just think it's a little bit interesting.
00:52:05
They're trying to attempt to provide a solution to a problem
00:52:09
when I would imagine. Like that's kind of like a
00:52:11
Gateway into elevating the issue.
00:52:17
Yeah, I don't know if that makes sense but it's a little, it's a
00:52:20
little anecdotal, but I would just imagine like if you're
00:52:23
someone that's has like that, that psyche knew that has.
00:52:28
That has a dick that's addicted to something.
00:52:32
Like, I personally like, I know I have a addictive personality
00:52:34
like overall, that's probably why.
00:52:37
I like I try very hard to stay away from all the gambling stuff
00:52:40
intentionally but I just that was just kind of like my I like
00:52:47
a little bit odd that they're using like the gambling
00:52:51
proposition and trying to connect that to homelessness and
00:52:54
I just think kind of morally. I mean, wouldn't that kind of
00:52:59
elevated and also enable the homelessness issue that is
00:53:02
already pretty bad and I know the homeless, this thing I feel
00:53:06
like it's something that both parties have tried to help out
00:53:10
with and, you know, in my personal opinion and Republicans
00:53:13
have done overall better to improve it but but it's just one
00:53:17
of those things where like I also think to like I feel like
00:53:21
we're going to be resolving till the end of time and Yeah, I
00:53:29
think I think overall like the best solution for that too is to
00:53:32
give lust of it to the state government and to focus more on,
00:53:36
you know, private organizations and have it be based on local
00:53:38
control. So overall, my thoughts are, I
00:53:44
would oppose proposition 27. Yeah.
00:53:50
And I mean, we could always have a whole episode just talking
00:53:54
about homelessness in California and kind of go deep.
00:53:58
Into what we think is causing it.
00:54:00
Maybe get expert on who knows more about it.
00:54:04
I think there's a lot of deeper issues to homelessness.
00:54:08
I mean, I think it's layers and when it comes to homelessness, I
00:54:10
think it's the fact that there's not affordable housing.
00:54:13
And why is there not affordable? Housing is it because of stuff
00:54:16
like sequel, which makes it hard to build housing.
00:54:18
So developers don't want to build housing and therefore,
00:54:21
Supply is really low, but then we also have a state government
00:54:26
that is very Lying to homeless it like, there's a whole bunch
00:54:29
of layers to it, and I can see your argument of legalizing it,
00:54:34
a addictive Alma, you know, an addictive problem, such as
00:54:41
gambling could cause more homelessness because people
00:54:46
would be gambling on Sports and they could be becoming homeless.
00:54:50
Is that sort of, what am I kind of summarizing it?
00:54:55
Or, or yeah. Correcting.
00:54:57
My understand. Yeah.
00:54:58
Yeah. So I guess it would be kind of
00:54:59
like saying like well with the way we solve people who are
00:55:04
addicted to like fentanyl meth is we should just legalize
00:55:07
fentanyl meth. I don't think that would really
00:55:11
help the situation. I don't think all of a sudden
00:55:13
overnight, it would just be, like, everyone stop doing that
00:55:16
and all meth it would just be allowed now.
00:55:19
So I could definitely see that argument and Yeah, my thoughts
00:55:24
on prop 27r for my own selfish reasons.
00:55:30
I wouldn't mind being able to place a bet on a sports game
00:55:35
every once in a while. It's fun, I do enjoy a sports
00:55:39
but every once in a while, when I go to Vegas, I like to put
00:55:42
money on teams and stuff like that.
00:55:45
It's always fun and makes the games more exciting, you know,
00:55:49
to sense could go to whatever fund that their I'm saying maybe
00:55:54
the selfish person to me says, I just want to be able to bet on a
00:55:57
sports game. So, but I do like, you know,
00:56:02
breaking this down. I think I was already in favor
00:56:04
of prop 27 because I wanted to be able to do that.
00:56:08
I also delivered to our enemy. Just says, we should be able to
00:56:11
do all this stuff regardless. It shouldn't really be such a
00:56:14
big deal. Yeah.
00:56:16
But then when I saw that they specifically earmarked 85% to
00:56:20
homelessness I was like okay. And None of it's going in the
00:56:23
general fund to the point where it's okay.
00:56:26
The money is going somewhere and it has to be audited, has to be
00:56:30
tracked where it's going as opposed to prop 26.
00:56:34
Where it's just. I feel like it's just the rich
00:56:36
tribes are Kind of giving themselves more revenue streams
00:56:43
and then as a payoff to the state, just here's millions of
00:56:47
dollars for you to spend whatever you want.
00:56:49
So I would be a Yes on Prop 27. I will be voting.
00:56:55
Yes, probably unless my mind is changed by November.
00:57:00
Well, and there you have it, folks.
00:57:02
It is very normal for friends to agree to disagree.
00:57:07
I know we did not agree on Prop 27 and I'm not going to get off
00:57:11
this IV. Like, that's it.
00:57:13
Cynthia, you're off the show. Forget it, you're done.
00:57:16
We're never talking again. We're never working together
00:57:18
again. Oh, I forgot to ask the people
00:57:22
who are tuned in in the comment section, whether they would
00:57:24
vote, yes. Or no on Prop 27, or if they had
00:57:28
any other questions or It's about the two of these.
00:57:31
Did you have anything else you want to add?
00:57:33
You had like, a whole bunch of tabs open so I didn't want to
00:57:36
kind of squash or step on any of your research.
00:57:39
No, I think we covered it all. I mean, we covered over, you
00:57:43
know, some moral aspects of it. So the nuances of it be covered,
00:57:47
the fiscal aspects of it. We went over, who is in support
00:57:51
of it, who is not. We also touched upon the
00:57:55
arguments for it and against it, we gave our personal opinions of
00:58:00
Of it. We normalized agreeing to
00:58:02
disagree with your loved ones. I think we've made I think we
00:58:06
had a very productive podcast today.
00:58:10
Yeah, I thought that I think that's about as you know in
00:58:16
depth as you're going to get probably of these two
00:58:17
propositions and there you have it.
00:58:21
I mean, that's my take on it. I think to sum it up.
00:58:24
Prop 26, definitely benefits the tribes and puts the power in
00:58:28
their hands. I think probably Twenty-seven
00:58:30
allows people all over California to enjoy in sports
00:58:34
betting. Also tribes will make money on
00:58:38
this as well. Corey says, full disclosure.
00:58:42
I worked for yes, on 26, no 127. I personally agree with those
00:58:46
positions and will vote accordingly, okay, so Corey is
00:58:50
a. Yes on 26, no, 127, or is that
00:58:53
what he's saying? Yep.
00:58:55
This was a very fair assessment. Thanks though.
00:58:57
Thanks Corey. Yeah, we didn't shout at each
00:59:01
other. No one was yelling or Screaming
00:59:02
or anything like that or no one said any buzzwords like you
00:59:05
know, Marxist socialist how hole or anything like that.
00:59:08
He made it through an entire podcast about California in the
00:59:11
words Marxist and socialist, how whole we're not brought up.
00:59:15
But yeah, I think most people conservatives will likely vote
00:59:20
no on these just because usually the sentiment is don't give
00:59:25
anymore. Our to state regulatory.
00:59:28
We're any, you know, the Ron Swanson approach, which is If it
00:59:31
creates one more Public Employee, I wouldn't vote for
00:59:36
it. So Yeah, but if anyone also you
00:59:41
know because I think the people the viewers probably follow us
00:59:44
but if not if anyone's listening to the replay of this, there is
00:59:48
a lot of propositions and this is we just covered the Statewide
00:59:52
ones that are gonna be on your ballot but also countywide
00:59:55
that's a whole there topic. We're in San Diego and there's
00:59:58
so many, I mean, there's ones for the county of San Diego.
01:00:01
There's if you live in Carlsbad and, you know, Lamesa like they
01:00:06
have their own ones. You?
01:00:08
So it's a lot but if there's anyone that has any specifics
01:00:13
that may be interested in discovering and breaking down, I
01:00:18
mean, I think I'd be a great podcast.
01:00:21
I know Phil was very intrigued by that buy these, and they gave
01:00:23
me an opportunity to learn about it.
01:00:26
That way, I can make sure I focus on this instead of just
01:00:29
two candidates. But yeah, I thought this was
01:00:33
great. There's a lot of propositions
01:00:34
this year to be completely honest, there's this one Let's
01:00:38
see 28 provides additional funding for music, all that one.
01:00:42
I'm sure is full of crap whenever anything says provides
01:00:47
additional funding for music and arts and stuff like that, you
01:00:52
know, it's full of crap. 29 is the dialysis one that keeps
01:00:57
coming up again. And again, since I don't
01:01:00
understand it, I always just vote now and I think that's why
01:01:02
people vote. No, there's 30 Air pollution to
01:01:06
prevent wildfires by increasing tax on personal income over two
01:01:11
million. Okay, that sounds like a good
01:01:13
one and then there's the most probably Infamous 1 which would
01:01:20
be prop 1 which is adding a constitutional amendment
01:01:25
protecting the right to an abortion basically up until
01:01:29
birth. So we could definitely go over
01:01:31
that one as well. I think that would be a good one
01:01:33
to dive into. Soon.
01:01:36
Yep. Not that.
01:01:37
I mean, I think we'd be, it wouldn't be spoiling it.
01:01:40
If both you, and I already gave our ideas on the position but I
01:01:44
think it'd be good to dive into anyway.
01:01:46
So but yeah. Like Cynthia said, we got a lot
01:01:49
to go over. We got a lot of candidates.
01:01:50
We want to talk about, we got a lot of propositions and there
01:01:55
are a lot of measures, you know, their County measures, their
01:01:57
City measures and stuff like that.
01:01:58
So if there's anything you guys want us to kind of break down
01:02:01
and talk about, let us know and And as always, like, I like to
01:02:06
end every show, if you thought this was really informative,
01:02:09
especially this one because it does kind of break down prop 26,
01:02:13
and prop 25. And so if people are like, I
01:02:15
don't understand, prop, 26 or prop 27.
01:02:17
What's the difference? You can be like, we'll check out
01:02:19
this really good podcast, California underground, they did
01:02:22
a great job, breaking it down and send them over our way on
01:02:26
Spotify. Apple, they can watch us again
01:02:28
on YouTube, Google all that stuff.
01:02:31
So send it to a friend and Yeah, I guess that's basically if you
01:02:37
like the podcast, make sure you like share, subscribe, hit the
01:02:40
notification belt as well because it does alert you when
01:02:43
we're going live. I'll let you know when we've
01:02:45
scheduled a show so you know that it's coming up and yeah
01:02:50
basically anything else to add some if you know that is all
01:02:54
thank you for tuning in. Have a good night, everybody.
01:03:16
Thank you for listening to another episode of California
01:03:18
underground. If you like what you heard,
01:03:20
remember to subscribe? Like and review it and follow
01:03:23
California Underground on social media for updates as to when new
01:03:26
episodes are available.