Schwarzenegger bans welfare cards at casinos

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has issued an executive order barring California welfare recipients from using state-issued debit cards at casino ATMs.

Thursday's order followed a report by The Los Angeles Times that found CalWORKS cards were used to withdraw cash in more than half the casinos in the state.

The newspaper reported Thursday that welfare recipients have withdrawn more than $1.8 million in taxpayer cash at casinos since October.

Schwarzenegger's order requires welfare recipients to sign a pledge that they will use their benefits only to meet the basic needs of their families.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/06/24/national/a174318D61.DTL&tsp=1

[Ter]

1. Good for him

I don't see how anyone could oppose this

[corkhead]

2. He is denying them their only hope of lifting themselves out of poverty?

trying to be devil's advocate here.:shrug:

[Dennis Donovan]

3. More likely to sink deeper into it by gambling...

:thumbsdown:

[corkhead]

11. I don't disagree.

dev·il's advocate
n. One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

[Heywood J]

12. The house always wins.

Otherwise, casinos wouldn't be in business. For every person who wins, there are between fifty and five hundred others who walk away having lost all they put in.

[Zambero]

17. If they don't eat...

since the monthly food allowance has all been squandered in casinos, they will in fact escape poverty, by way of starvation that is.

[chrisa]

64. Casinos are a scam.

The odds are always rigged in the Casino's favor, so at the end of the day, they recieve a good amount of returns versus what they give out. Of course, a couple people get lucky, but most people lose their money.

It's why, when you go there, most people look pissed off.

[happygoluckytoyou]

22. yeah....they get exercise if they have to cash it across the street at the Circle K

LETS MAKE THEM ONLY GET CASH AT THE PRODUCE STORE!!!

[truthisfreedom]

4. Jeepers, I would have done that at the outset!

Welfare cards that let you draw out cash? Seems like an invitation to disaster. Those cards should only work at stores and gas stations and medical facilities, places where basic needs are met!

[Stumbler]

25. No kidding...

One would think that would be possible given today's technology

[DLine]

104. I completely agree...

If you are such bad shape you need welfare, you should have no problem with the card only being able to purchase food, clothing, shelter, medicine..

[prolesunited]

5. I definitely agree with this one

[raccoon]

62. Me too. I also think that people who receive Social Security shouldn't be allowed to gamble

at casinos.

[JackRiddler]

67. Do you realize what you just said?

Social Security is a pension plan. Every worker above the retirement age receives it. Are you planning to bar senior citizens from entry to casinos? Then you might as well just shut down the casinos, since that would usually be the majority of the gamblers.

[Bunny]

89. Bullshit.

I've paid into social security for 33 years now. When I retire and start collecting my benefit, I'll be damned if I'll have anyone tell me what I can spend MY money on.

[Zavulon]

116. Completely different thing.

Not everyone who receives Social Security is poor; many are just collecting some of what they paid on over lifetimes of work. By your logic we should also ban gambling by people who have jobs and are paying into that system. Holy crap.

[Mz Pip]

6. I agree with him on this n/t

[izquierdista]

7. Ya know, money IS fungible

That's kind of the definition of it (medium of exchange). Doesn't stop people from using it at the ATM in the convenience store across the street. It's at most a very ineffective way to get welfare recipients to adapt (arguably) better behaviors. What would probably work better is to adjust the way cards are charged up, maybe as often as daily, if you want to control the spending habits of those using them.

Sometimes people that are always broke are like that for a reason. I knew a homeless alcoholic once, and if he had any money at the end of the day, there was always the nickel keno machine that could solve that problem. He woke up every morning with zero cash and the first thing on his mind was spanging enough cash for 3 quarts of beer. He did have valuable talents though. He could find any defect in a system like CalWORKS and twist it to accommodate his lifestyle.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Cannot argue with that!!

When I see what some people buy at the Supermarket with their benefits cards..I think that perhaps there should be MORE limits.

Fresh/canned/frozen fruit and vegetables, meat and other ESSENTIALS..but they should not be allowed to buy chips, dips, pork rinds, bags of candy, and a very long list of empty caloried, obesity/heart attack-producing fast foods and snacks. It is a waste of everyone's money and undermining the health of all those who buy them.

[bitchkitty]

54. If they're hungry, feed them. But it better not taste good!

Honestly, who is going to be the food police here? The cashier?

Or maybe they can just rework the whole UPC code system to include whether or not a welfare recipient can buy any given product. Why stop at junk food? Why let them buy chicken, if they can eat tuna? Do NOT let them eat cake!!! Mangoes are expensive, so no tropical fruit, but they can let them buy those big bags of apples.

Why should the poor forget for one fucking minute that they are poor? It's not good for them to enjoy themselves.

[BrklynLiberal]

55. Your name is very appropriate.

[bitchkitty]

63. I wear it proudly. n/t

[JitterbugPerfume]

73. you can only purchase certain things with WIC vouchers

what is the difference

[Zavulon]

115. If my tax dollars are going to support the poor,

I want the money spent on food, shelter and medicine, not to let "the poor forget for one fucking minute that they are poor."

The vast majority of money gambled by welfare recipients (and everyone else, for that matter) stays with the casino. Why not just voice your support of corporate welfare for casinos while you're going off on your wild tangent about cake and mangoes? Talk about apples and oranges...

[Socal31]

9. I can't really fathom an argument against this.

And I usually like to keep an open mind.

[Bitwit1234]

10. WEELLL he done did someth' right.

[Lil Missy]

13. Holy crap. That's pretty sad.

[IOKIYAL]

14. Good.

[Zambero]

15. A no-brainer

Beginning with Reagan, conservatives have cited this type of abuse as being "widespread" and the "norm", as an argument to scrap all gov't administered assistance programs. Unlike the kneejerk "solution" from the right, it always more prudent not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If it needs fixing, then by all means fix it. Arnold gets it right this time.

[HooptieWagon]

16. That is a good thing.

And I might add that anyone that used their card at a casino probably shouldn't even have a card.

[Fastcars]

18. I drove a taxi...

Here in Shreveport, LA for a few months and I could tell stories that would keep you awake at night.

I used to think the casinos weren't all that bad but after dealing with people that would go to a casino and lose every dime they took with them but made sure to leave enough money at home so they could pay the fare for the ride home several times a month I started to re-think that position.

Taking the guy home in tears talking to his wife on the cell after he lost all of his money, and then all of hers put me solidly in the anti-gambling camp. The saddest thing about the guy was him telling me, after he got off the phone with his wife, about the lady that walked out into traffic in front of us. Said her losses made his seem like child's play, he sat beside her while she lost the majority of her and her husbands life savings.

It was eye-opening to hear people on their way to the casino talking about the amount of money they KNEW they were going to lose. Scary stuff.

[Honeycombe8]

112. I'm anti-gambling, too, even tho I haven't seen as much as you have.

It's generally an unhealthy, obsessive thing to do. When you think about it, even on a beautiful day people go and sit their butts down all day long inside a building, in an artificial and shallow environment, and don't do anything that is productive in any way (unless they win, which they don't...that's how casinos stay in business). They don't exercise, use their brains, socialize in a healthy way, and they certainly don't improve their financial situation.

Plus I just don't get what people find fun about it. It's not fun to me...pulling some handles on a slot machine? Weird.

[brentspeak]

19. A good move on Schwarzenegger's part n/t

[rpannier]

20. This one he gets correct nt

[gmpierce]

21. Sounds like Republican politics to me...

Nothing in this executive order actually solves a problem. No matter what you force people to sign, that doesn't keep them from using the card at the convenience store across the way from the casino.

From that, I figure that this is a modern update of the "welfare queen" drama. The goal is not to protect the deserving poor, it is do tag all welfare recipients as bums who will waste the money they are given.

The next step of course, will be to take the benefits away from those undeserving bums.

For those who wonder why anyone would use the ATM at a casino, you might consider that many casinos have persuaded people to cash third party checks with them because they do not charge the 2-3% fees that check cashing companies charge. So now you have a carefully cultivated group of people who figure that the casino is where you go to cash a check or to otherwise get money.

This is not entirely cynicism - I like to think of it as critical reading or critical thinking (which some of the time is the same thing as cynicism.) And I am really disappointed in DU readers who bought into this plausible BS.

Now aren't you ashamed of yourselves. Fooled again!

[ronnie624]

28. *

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

29. Well, we can't have welfare recipients enjoying anything.

That would be unAmerican! lol

[chrisa]

66. This is about government funds.

If they want to use their own money to gamble, that's fine. However, I don't think that the government should be giving money to just have it wasted on Casinos that make billions of dollars every year anyways. If somebody is on welfare, they should provide for their family's basic necessities first.

Anybody who doesn't have a gambling problem wouldn't waste a Welfare check, which is small to begin with, on a trip to the Casino.

[EFerrari]

74. This is about a politician scoring point on the gullible

by playing on their prejudices about poor people.

[chrisa]

83. Who's to say it's not about both?

None the less, Welfare payments shouldn't be used at Casinos.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. So you're saying people SHOULD be allowed to gamble

with welfare benefits?

:shrug:

[chrisa]

65. The goal is to stop tax payer's money from...

Being squandered away (or basically handed over) to Casinos through losses. It's not calling Welfare recipients bums. It's making sure that they use the money for its intended purpose (feeding their families or themselves).

If a friend gave you money to buy food because you needed it, what do you think they would say if you went and gambled it away instead? It's just a waste of Government money when California is having money troubles to begin with.

[JackRiddler]

68. If that's the goal, then obviously this measure does nothing. Zero. Zip. De Nada.

It is a purely cosmetic, moral panic measure, the only possible function of which is propaganda pandering to the Republican base "values" and anti-poor sentiment.

This measure can in no way prevent people from gambling money from whatever source at a casino.

If they want to limit that, then don't put casinos near population centers and make them charge a fat door fee that goes into gambling prevention and counseling programs.

[chrisa]

84. It does very little, but there's no way to actually stop

People on welfare from cashing those checks, and then going to the Casino. However, Casinos shouldn't help them by allowing them to cash their checks there. That's government money that should be used to improve their lives, not give the Casinos more money.

[JackRiddler]

95. Someone brought up a very good point.

Casinos offer free check-cashing. Not out of the goodness of their heart, certainly. Meanwhile, the check cashing places, in many states unregulated (I don't know about California), are yet another poverty shark making sure that money is a lot more expensive for the poor than for the rich. How about Schwarzenegger in addition to banning welfare check-cashing and ATMs at casinos also offers free cashing for the same people? That would be a measure that actually accomplishes anything.

[Dreamer Tatum]

87. In other words, punish everyone. Bullshit on that. nt

[JackRiddler]

92. Is that a punishment, now?

How terrible, to deprive people of an easy right to be bilked by casinos. (This in a society that imprisons more than a million people because of prohibition and just raised the price on a pack of cigarettes to $13 in New York.) If there are laws limiting people's right to freely choose to have their lives detroyed by usury, why are casinos instead encouraged and promoted?

The state should not be sanctioning and seeking revenue from gambling. Instead, it should seek to limit the damage that gambling inevitably does.

I wouldn't ban it, because that's just inviting mobs to take over. Instead, I'd require casinos to offer odds such that the game is no longer rigged, the gambler wins 50 percent of the time. If there's a surplus from gambling, tax it for gambling counseling. To pay the casino's expenses make them charge a door fee and for food and drink. They'll make plenty. The places would no longer be as lavish, because they wouldn't be money factories. Tough shit.

Most serious gamblers would like that, don't you think?

[Gormy Cuss]

23. Good P.R. value but it's a very small portion of the CalWORKS (TANF) expenditure.

The state spends about two billion dollars each year on TANF -- while $1.8 million is a lot of money, in context it's a tiny fraction of the program funds that are being used at casinos -- less than one tenth of one percent. It's not a bad idea to cut off the ATMs at casinos but in terms of overall effectiveness of TANF spending it's insignificant.

Watch the way this gets spun in the right wing media.

[Francisco]

24. Makes sense..

you'd think that would already be a rule tho.

[raouldukelives]

26. Sad to think of them gambling it all away...

When they could have been investing that money in the stock market.

[saigon68]

34. LOL---Good post

Outstanding :-) :-)

[slackmaster]

37. Funny, but there is nothing funny about gambling addiction

Or nicotine addiction, or alcoholism...

[Cleita]

27. Since the Casinos are run by Indian tribes on their lands, it's possible that

the casino ATMS are more convenient to the welfare recipients in their community than driving into town to use a bank ATM that would charge them a fee. I wonder if the Terminator looked into this? I wonder if whoever broke this story looked into it?

[EFerrari]

30. Come on, Cleita. You know these people are gambling and paying for abortions

and probably on weekdays, too.

[Cleita]

31. How silly of me.

I should have known better.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

32. You're probably right that people use the ATMs they can get to.

Poor people aren't as mobile as people with jobs. So they use the atm at the nearby casino, the one at the liquor store, the one at the convenience store because those are the stores that have them. There are usually very few banks in low income neighborhoods, right?

[Cleita]

33. Yes, and I'm wondering when was the last time our

Governor went into a low income neighborhood other than as a photo op.

[totodeinhere]

44. Poor people who are not too mobile are a lot closer to ATM's in the city or town where they live.

Almost all Indian casinos in California are in outlying areas.

[joshcryer]

57. And almost all towns with a casino have a Wal-Mart.

[EFerrari]

78. When we used to play Reno, I had to walk out to the discount store

to stock the kitchenette. It was right on the main drag but out on the edge of town. Maybe so only campers on their way out would go there and remember they had to eat and heat and fuel. Downtown there were atms in casinos every five feet. It used to take me about forty minutes each way, iirc.

But the truth is, joshcryer, it is really none of my business if welfare recipients go to casinos and gamble and drink and smoke while breastfeeding, you know? It doesn't bother me in the least.

If you want me to get exercised about welfare fraud or misuse, we can talk about Wall Street or Big Pharma or the defense industry. Because those are the real fraudsters in this country, not these people.

[Gormy Cuss]

48. But that's not a prudent use of teh gubmint money!

Every time they pay a fee, the governor cries.

As I posted upthread, this move has great P.R. value. Like you, I'd love to see more information on where these casino ATMs are. Since most casinos in the state are in fairly rural areas I'd guess that at least some of the usage is a combination of convenience and lower fees than the other local ATMs.

[joshcryer]

59. I thought the same thing until I googled "Wal-Mart map CA" and found...

...that every fucking casino town has one. Hell, it's actually *more* likely that people on welfare are going to the Wal-Mart to cash out, and *then* going to the casino, for the simple fact that they probably don't want to be caught spending their welfare cards at the casino!

[Gormy Cuss]

72. Really? I got very different results.

I checked six casinos against the Walmart store locator. Failure rate was four of six.
Casinos in Hoopa and Bishop. Nearest Walmart over 100 miles
Casino in Auberry. Nearest Walmart, 25 miles.
Casino in Smith River. Nearest Walmart, 17 miles.

[EFerrari]

80. And casinos supply most of the jobs in casinos towns

so if you're getting a ride from a friend with a car, your friend probably works at the casino. Duh.

[joshcryer]

56. This is absolute nonsense.

Fact is the cards act just like debit cards, so any modern store is going to be able to accept them. The vast majority of casino towns in CA have Wal-Marts, yaknow, that place where dirty poor people go to shop (I know Whole Foods and the Apple Store are oh so much better, but we'll ignore that for now).

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the vast, overwhelming, ridiculous majority of these people were using their cards to cash out, and gamble. Now I'm not saying they all gambled their whole check away, nearly half a billion in welfare (annually) and just under two million of it (in 8 months) went to casino ATMs. It's less than 1%, and that is why I'm inclined to believe that it was indeed gambling.

You need to get gas for your car, casino is nearby, you hit the casino up, play some slots, and then go fill up your tank with the cash. It's an easy thing to do and it was happening.

[EFerrari]

76. What is nonsense? The two atms in my neighborhood

were outside a liquor store and inside a 7/11. If I wanted to go to a bank, I needed to take the streetcar to a shopping district. I've also never been in a Whole Foods or an Apple Store.

The Pentagon LOSES billions of dollars every year but you guys are having fits because some of these people might put a nickel in a slot machine? My mom would say, this is why 9/11 happened and she'd be right.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

42. They're probably getting the abortions right at the casinos, next to the black jack tables. nt

[EFerrari]

81. Right on the black jack tables while they're snorting coke

and leering at women.

lol

[SunnySong]

108. Welfare recipients smoke crack or if they are pale tweet...

Snorting coke is reserved for corporate welfare recipients.

[totodeinhere]

43. Casino ATM's charge a fee, usually higher than what banks charge.

Here in Elko, Nevada, at the two largest casinos it's $2.50 per transaction.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. What do Elko banks charge for noncustomer transactions?

I know that B of A charges $3.00. Well Fargo probably isn't much less. The average nationally was $2.22 last year ( http://www.businessinsider.com/atm-fees-climbing-for-non-customers-study-finds-2009-10 ). Elko may be different than the national average but on the surface it doesn't seem that a $2.50 per transaction fee at casinos is exorbitant.

[joshcryer]

53. It should be enough to dissuade a poor person who is low on cash from using them.

I know when I was low on cash I'd go to my banks ATM (and only my banks ATM, at the freaking bank itself) to cash out. The very risk of having to pay fees was too great at that time. (All of my family members, including myself, have been hit in the past for "overdraft fees" and such, to the tune of thousands of dollars if you add it up over the years.)

[Gormy Cuss]

69. Many low income people have no bank accounts, so they're always noncustomers.

IOW, it's possible that every ATM transaction comes with a fee. Some banks do waive the fee for EBT cards and that's good if people have access to one of those banks.

[joshcryer]

51. Hilariously possible but ridiculously unlikely. Every casino town has, you guessed it, a Wal-Mart.

Now it's possible that some yuppie embarrassed to go into a Wal-Mart might go into a casino, swipe their card, and head on out to their local grocery to avoid the embarrassment of using a welfare card. Yeah, totally possible.

But I would laugh my fucking ass off if there was even one incidence of that, even one. The scenarios used to justify these people cashing out at casinos are so few that it's just a task in futility to try to think of them.

[burnsei sensei]

35. Much to the chagrin of casino owners,

I'm sure.

[slackmaster]

36. Amazing that it took until now for people to recognize that particular flaw in the system

Good for Arnold.

[joshcryer]

61. The flaw is that these cards even allow cash out.

They should act like foodstamp cards, with an exception for gasoline, along with recognition by the utility companies. That's all. Period. End of story.

[JackRiddler]

70. Thanks for anticipating the likely next stage of this attack on the poor.

You have responded as Schwarzenegger would have hoped.

[JVS]

111. That's ridiculous.

Welfare money should be able to be spent on whatever the recipient need. Foodstamps covering food is fine, but if someone on welfare needs to use some of their benefit to buy incidentals they should be able to access the cash and get what it is that they need.

[Arkansas Granny]

38. I don't see how this order will really change things. If people want to use

the money on these cards to gamble, they will just draw the funds out of another ATM before they go to the casino. I don't see how this move will prevent that any more than a pledge to only use the benefits for basic needs. It sounds like nothing but window dressing to me.

[slackmaster]

40. It will force them to put more thought into planning their gambling excursions

It might reduce impulse spending by people who have run out of cash or cigarettes.

ATMs at casinos also charge usurious fees.

[Hosnon]

39. This is a no-brainer. nt.

[shanti]

46. exactly

probably never occurred to cdss to ban them in casinos until now, but better late than never.

[eilen]

41. Can they make that rule for Social Security Checks too?

Most of the heads I see at casinos are white and grey.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

47. That would be the end of casinos.

So, no, that rule won't be made.

:hi:

[joshcryer]

58. The difference is that people on SS earned it.

Well, most of them anyway.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. The difference is that Social Security benefits are earned, unlike welfare benefits

So there is not moral indignation regarding how the recipients spend that money.

[eilen]

85. How long does it take for a person

on SS to reach the point in which they have received the amount of money they have put in? At that point it is welfare.

[LuckyLib]

93. Not so. Most Americans have used up what they contributed and are living off of tax payer

contributions. It's the same trough as welfare, different social acceptability. Folks sometimes forget that.

[EFerrari]

77. Definitely. Social Security is broken anyway.

Also, people with children at home because that's just asking for abuse.

I'd also check divorced people to make sure they're not behind on child support.

Maybe people who don't pay their taxes quarterly because by the end of the year, they'll be too broke to pay.

Students also have no business in casinos -- they throw their money away and then complain about their debt load.

[lynne]

45. Good for him! They should also add bingo halls to that list - eom

[joshcryer]

52. Why the fuck does it even allow cash out at ATMs?

Welfare is for food, transport, and utilities. Using it like a fucking debit card is ridiculous. How many of these fucking people are feeding their addiction habits (cigarettes, alcohol) with these cards?

[EFerrari]

75. Really. Fucking people with their humanity and shit. We should just cut them off.

[Gormy Cuss]

82. It is a fucking debit card.

The TANF payment, called CalWORKS in California, is supposed to pay for everything else in life from to bus/gas money. Worked the same way when paper checks were issued. Most TANF recipients also receive a separate food allowance under the SNAP program.

How many people use some or all of these funds to fuel addictions? Don't know, but since the payments are so fucking meager to begin with I doubt that there are that many. Average benefit in CA is about $500 per case (see: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/res/pdf/Paff/2010/PAFFMar10.pdf .)

[Honeycombe8]

110. My guess is that it's cheaper issuing a debit card than sending a check.

The result is the same, but a debit card is probably more efficient. Biggest difference is, I guess, that using a debit card at a casino can be traced to the source, whereas before, the welfare recipients would cash their checks, then use cash at the casinos.

[fascisthunter]

71. ok... that's ridiculous.... welfare cards at casinos?!

[GreenStormCloud]

79. I have seen welfare checks being cashed in casinos.

In 1995 I was in Greenville, MS about once or twice a month. One time I was there on the day the welfare checks were delivered. Greenville had two riverboat casinos, and each one had a table set up outside (with armed guards)for welfare checks to be cashed. The line for the check cashing table was long, stretching out the gangplank and along the shore. As soon as the checks were cashed, the people went inside to gamble, mostly on the slot machines. Very few cashed their check and left. I have never before or since seen a casino so packed with people so that it was hard to move around.

[U4ikLefty]

86. Typical Arnold. Using a situation to make himself look "good"

He's a populist con-artist & the ignorant eat this slop up like pigs at a trough.

I can't believe anyone still likes this fool after his total failure as the Governator.

Fucking loser.

[Dreamer Tatum]

88. So you encourage tax dollars being spent on gambling? nt

[U4ikLefty]

90. Like the lotto tix or the stock market?

Yes I think we should only allow those peasants who would DARE take gov't money to bow to my every whim.

...and then, AND ONLY THEN should we allow them to eat...feh!!!

[Dreamer Tatum]

91. Can't answer a direct question = not sure how you really feel. Got it.

I'm hardly alone in the feeling that welfare money is for shoring up finances to the greatest degree possible while
you look for work. To me, that precludes usage of those funds for gambling.

Pout and call me a meanie if you like. I don't give a shit.

[U4ikLefty]

96. Ahhh, the classic "define your enemy's argument". Merlin, we missed you here on earth!

What kind of fucking degree do YOU have to read my & my feelings? Prolly a degree in Bullshittery...from DeVry.

I am not pouting, but laughing at the anti-poor attitude from a faux-Progressive like "someone" on this board.

As for the "shit" you give...you gave it in your initial response.

[tomhayes]

94. That's not the issue

This does nothing to stop a person from taking the money out at the cloest ATM to the Casino.

Or should all ATMs within 30 miles of a casino not dispense cash??

While I do NOT gamble - and I think it's stupid to do so - I don't see how this "law" helps anything except as a PR stunt.

the first time we hear of a person taking 400 out of an ATM one mile away from a casino should we assume this law didn't work?

[U4ikLefty]

97. Stop making sense. This person is too busy flexing in a pissing-contest with me.

Don't worry, I will not respond & give them anymore rope.

I agree with you BTW, They can get their cash & gamble anywhere...what is to stop the resourceful gambling-addict?

I was just riffing on the fact that Arnold is trying to granstand on the backs of the poor ...AGAIN, and some here are good with that.

I understand why Arnold does this crap, but I don't understand why a so-called progressive would be on-board.

[boppers]

98. Gee, why does California have budget problems?

Things like this make me wonder what other insanity is running around.

[U4ikLefty]

99. Because it takes 2/3 to pass a budget. n/t

[JI7]

103. term limits for state legislature, prop 13, stupid proposition system

[bemildred]

100. Elect an actor, what you get is drama. nt

[EFerrari]

102. The Grope loves to pick on people who can't hop in their cars and protest him.

Poor people, disabled people, stray pets. He's got a real knack for this sh!t.

[Taverner]

101. Not an unreasonable request, really

I don't mind gambling

But this isn't overly strict

[hollowdweller]

105. This study shows Legalized Gambling = Tax on the poor

I have a buddy who works in a bar and used to be a crack addict. The bar has gambling machines and he said he has seen more poor people spend more money on their gambling addictions in one day as he spend in a week being addicted to crack.

I remember in The Autobiography of Malcom X he went on about how poor folks would waste money on the lottery.

[JVS]

113. Malcolm X was probably talking about local lotteries run by gangs like the mafia.

Legalized state lotteries only started appearing around the time he died. Before them, number running was a cornerstone of organized crime.

[ZombieHorde]

106. I strongly disagree with this. Restricting freedom should have at least some benefit.

This has no benefit, just less freedom.

The pledge is even worse. I fear the pledge could be used to take away someone's benefits.

[devilgrrl]

107. This will affect about 5 people if that many.

:popcorn:

[SunnySong]

109. Yet corporate welfare for casinos is just fine and dandy.

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/article_6703e834-049d-11df-836a-001cc4c002e0.html

[saras]

114. food?

Do California casinos offer awesomely cheap, good, all-you-can-eat food like other casinos? It may be not that dysfunctional after all...