Lottery follies, part 3
This is the third in a series of commentaries about what's really in the lottery bill.
We can all feel good that the lottery is going to produce lots more money for schools.
Right?
Well, then, I wonder why this provision contained in the original version of the lottery bill...
"The net revenues generated by the lottery shall not supplant revenues already expended or projected to be expended for those public purposes, and lottery net revenues shall supplement rather than be used as substitute funds for the total amount of money allocated for those public purposes"
... was deleted from the final version.
It means there's nothing in the bill to stop the legislature from removing a tax dollar from school funding for every lottery dollar it puts in.
Could the lottery actually produce no net gain for schools?
Keep a lookout.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
It's always interesting to hear the politicians and educators solution to improving education, raise taxes (pass a lottery) and throw more money at the issue.
However, the improvements in education are never commensurate with the amount of money spent. The Republic of Washington D.C. spends on the average around 10,000 per pupil, yet according to statistics, graduates some of the least prepared students in our country.
Lotteries don't improve the educational quality of our students. Instead, lotteries typically embroil the mathematically challenged into a cycle of false hopes of "instant wealth."
Posted on September 16, 2005 1:00 PM
While I am not a supporter of the lottery, I firmly believe that we should model our program after the Georgia program. We should guarantee a college education to every student who can maintain a B average in HS and score a sufficient mark on SAT/ACT, while also increasing the availability and quality of pre-K programs.
Doling out the lottery money to county schools is a losing proposition, because there is no carrot for students (free ride at UNC, ECU, UNCG, etc.) and the debate over local finances only becomes more complex between commissioners and school boards.
If we must create a state-run numbers racket, we could at least have some foresight as to how to use the money.
As I said recently, I predict no net gain in quality of education or teacher pay as a result of our lottery in its current form and proposed use.
Jeff
Posted on September 16, 2005 10:28 PM