It has been six years since the citizens of Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved the creation of our state lottery. On October 12, 2010, it will have been five years since the lottery went into effect and began it’s operation. In the interest of disclosure, let me say that I voted against the creation of the lottery and had I been blogging back then, I would have been fairly vocal in my opposition. There are a number of reasons why I believe the lottery to have been a bad thing for our state, which I will get to in a moment. I realize there is virtually no chance the lottery will ever be rescinded and stopped, but as I have yet to write about this issue, allow me to add my small voice to the clamor.
When the Oklahoma state lottery was first conceived and put before the people, it was touted as a way to
increase the amount of funding that was going to the different levels of education in the state. (We need to remember that, as we will come back to it later in the article. Again, it was supposed to be a way to increase the amount of education funding.) We can all agree with that, can’t we? I mean, isn’t it a good thing to provide our schools and our education system with more money they can use to educate our children? To get some idea of how the lottery was set up, let’s look at an article from The Journal Record, published on October 7, 2004, via Find Articles.
State Question 705 would authorize the creation of a state lottery. If approved by the voters, State Question 705 would amend state law to create the lottery and mandate that 30 percent of the gross revenue generated by the lottery go to education for the first two years and 35 percent in the following years. The proposed law would require that at least 45 percent of lottery revenue go to prizes and up to 20 percent be used for administrative costs.
The proposed state law would require that 13.5 percent of lottery proceeds during the first two years of operation go to kindergarten through 12th-grade schools in Oklahoma with almost 16 percent earmarked in years three and beyond.
The remaining share of lottery proceeds earmarked for education would go to state colleges, capital projects throughout the public school and college systems, technical improvements at all schools, teachers retirement, and other educational needs.
However, the distribution formula set out in State Question 705 could be altered by a majority vote of the Oklahoma Legislature in future sessions.
State Question 706 would amend the Oklahoma Constitution to create the Oklahoma Education Lottery Trust Fund. It lists the educational purposes that money in the fund can support, but does not specify what percentage of money in the fund would go to any area of education.
The proposed constitutional amendment also states that the Oklahoma Legislature cannot use lottery money to supplant or replace other state funds supporting common education, higher education, or career and technology education.
Did you read the last paragraph? Remember what I mentioned above? We were told the money coming from the lottery would be
additional or new money that would help fund education in Oklahoma and that it would be kept separate from the common funds for that purpose.. As can be expected, it’s hard to track where the money is going, but one thing seems to be clear. The funds that come from the lottery are becoming exactly the opposite of what was claimed when lottery advocates were pushing for it’s creation. Instead of being new and additional money for education, it is deposited into the general education fund. In other words, no one can really point to specific things the lottery has done for the education system in Oklahoma.
The lottery sounded like a grand scheme and it’s authors no doubt had noble intentions. However, there is one glaring problem with funding education, or any other public venture, with money from a lottery. Where, do you suppose, does most of that money come from. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not from those who can most afford it. A lot of people are on a trend of saying that wealthy Americans should be glad to pay their fair share for living in such a grand country. The Bush tax cuts are still being portrayed as a tax cut for the wealthy, even though they actually cut the taxes of those who actually pay taxes. So, back to the question of where does the money from the lottery come from. It is usually from those who can least afford it.
If you will be so kind as to turn your attention to a Tulsa World article published on November 15, 2009, you will find that the poorest neighborhoods in Tulsa County are the ones who are buying more lottery tickets than any other area in the county. Paying to win clearly shows that those neighborhoods spend more per capita on lottery tickets than any neighborhood in the county. While I have not seen the statistics on the entire state, I doubt the story will change. Here is how the Tulsa World broke it down.
Those living within the 74116 ZIP code — where Batman’s Good Food is located — earn about $26,000 a year on average, data show. Since the lottery’s inception in October 2005, neighborhood stores have sold more than $3.2 million in lottery tickets, or about $906 for every resident in the area.
Similarly, those living within the 74119 ZIP code earn about $26,500 per household and have spent $576 per capita on tickets.
By contrast, residents within the 74137 ZIP code earn about $80,000 a household and have spent about $162 per person on lottery tickets since its inception.
No matter how the data is dissected, it comes down to one thing. The poorer you are, the more likely you will be playing the lottery, in the off-chance you will strike it rich. That means that those same people are paying more and more of the money that is slated for the funding of the education system in Oklahoma. That may not be a tax burden, my friends, but it amounts to the same thing, only it is voluntary.
Let’s look now at one of my biggest complaints about the lottery. To do so, let’s start several years ago, before the lottery was enacted in our state. For years, we have had a Cherokee Casino in my home town of Roland, OK. I have watched residents of both Oklahoma and Arkansas stream down Highway 64, on their way to play bingo (in the beginning) and other games of chance. This happens for one reason, the possibility of great riches with little to no effort. My daughters use to exclaim as we drove past, “look, Dad! They are giving away a brand new car.” When they did, I reminded them that the car wasn’t really free, that someone had to pay for it and it wasn’t going to be the casino.
I realize that there have been some people who have “struck it rich” in the lottery. One such couple was Don and Joyce Harvey of Muldrow, who won a $105.8 million jackpot with a winning ticket purchased at the Quick Stop in Roland. After taxes, their cash payout was $33.7 million and they have not been the only ones this has happened to. I just have one problem with the “strike it rich” scenario. What happens if it doesn’t happen.
You can read story after story about people who have not been so lucky. They are always looking to spend a little more on the lottery, in the hopes that their ship will come in. These are almost always people who can ill afford to pay the piper. I have witnessed such behavior personally and how it can be considered a positive thing for our state escapes me.
I am sure the state lottery has funded some areas of education, although the jury is still out on exactly what good is coming from the lottery money. At what expense, however has this came? Can we legitimately claim the lottery has been a success when it has been at the expense of some of our poorest citizens? I think not.
I don’t know Larry — it seems a bit patronizing to say “we’re closing down the lottery for your own good.” There certainly seems to be room for greater accountability on how the funds have been spent, whether the non-lottery education budget has been cut given the added lottery revenue, and whether the education system has benefited from the added money; but I don’t see closing it because poor people make bad choices about how to spend their money.
After the Tulsa World published their article in November, I wrote a blog post on the subject of the lottery entitled “An Immoral Act of Government.” All of the studies show the lottery to be one of the worst forms of regressive taxes, yet our elected leaders chose it to be a funding mechanism because it’s a way of raising money without “raising taxes.” I concluded the post with these words:
“Our representatives are supposed to be in the business of increasing liberty for the citizens of Oklahoma. Yet, by continuing to operate a state lottery, they have confined the poorest and most disadvantaged in our communities to shackles. This isn’t just negligent, it is immoral. It’s time to end the lottery and focus on getting our fellow community members out of poverty instead of keeping them there.”
You can read the entire post here: http://www.contemplativetulsan.com/2009/11/immoral-act-of-government.html
Thanks for your comment, Trait. I completely agree with what you said, but as I have already stated, I knew when I wrote this article that I would be in the minority. It looks like you are there with me. I do wish there was some way to end the lottery, but I can’t see that happening. Too many people like to play it and see nothing wrong with doing so.
It’s a fascinating take, Larry, and you make some good points about the accountability for educational spending.
But I have to agree with Mike on the “force” of buying lottery tickets. Nobody HAS to plunk down their dollars, and for that reason I disagree with the poster above,Trait, who portrays a voluntary form of entertainment as a “regressive tax”.
That those who can least afford to gamble are the most likely to do it is perplexing, but pursuing easy wealth is human nature for many. Can government stop human nature? Should it be responsible for regulating it?
I want to make a quick reply here, to Mike and Laurie. I do not consider the government a regulator in this instance, although they do regulate the lottery. I would think they have taken the role of an enabler by allowing the lottery in the first place. Of course, I am in the minority in our state, as the state questions that created the lottery were overwhelmingly approved in 2004. Just my honest opinion.
Thanks for the clarification, Larry.
I reread your post and now understand that this came about not through representative or legislative decision but through a vote. If that’s true, then this choice-to use your entertainment dollars on the Lottery (or not)- is a clear reflection of the majority will of the people of Oklahoma, isn’t it? I see absolutely no moral imperative of government or any private citizen here, other than to make sure that the funds are used as promised and that there is open disclosure for the voters.
I have to agree with Mike and Laurie on this one. I understand your point about accountability, but I just don’t have a problem with using the lottery to generate income. I do see this as a voluntary tax,and if people are willing to throw their money away on a chance to strike it rich I say it is up to them. Personally, I don’t play the lottery simply because I refuse to give the government any more money then I have to.
Steve, I honestly think I see your point of view on this, but that doesn’t change how I feel about the lottery. The government obviously should be dictating who can or can’t play the lottery and if people wish to throw their money down a rat hole, that is their choice. I just think the citizens of our state made a big mistake when it passed those two state questions and created the rat hole.
I’ve hear that mathematicians call the lottery “the stupid tax,” as it is so astronomically improbable to win. That’s my view of them, and I do not participate.
As a Conservative, I can’t get nanny state about it. The people spoke, and if folks want to waste their money, there’s not much I can, or even should, do about it. It’s a choice.
Thanks for the comment, Matt.
As a conservative, I am not a fan of a nanny state either. You are right, it is a choice. However, if I thought there was a chance that it could be repealed and stopped, by a vote of the people, I would support that effort wholeheartedly.
Whether the people voted on the measure or not is irrelevant to me. Our elected representatives were the ones who passed the legislative measure to place the lottery on the ballot. They are the gatekeepers of the public interest and they failed in this regard. They should have held the line because doing that is in the best interest of the state.
I am absolutely convinced this is a regressive tax because every study shows the poor to be overwhelming majority of people who purchase lottery tickets. Our representaives knew this and still decided to place the measure on the ballot.
Amen, Trait. Our legislators did drop the ball by putting the lottery before the people. I think all they were looking at were the dollar signs and failed to see the bigger picture of what a lottery does to the people.
Larry,
I was prepared to drop this as I understand your bottom line point, that the Lottery funds aren’t properly accounted for and possibly not being properly used.
But it is surprising to me when conservatives bend back on what has been an overriding point over the past couple of years. Think back to the health care debate. A huge bone of contention that you and a lot of conservatives had with the bill (setting aside its content) was that it went directly against the will of the people. In that case, there was no vote (save for the one in the 2008 election) that would have given a clear indication of how the people actually felt- just polls and sentiment. Conservatives had names for those who thought the government might know what was best: Liberals, Socialists, Marxists…Soemtimes all three in one sentences. In all cases, though, the message was clear and clearly stated: The people are against this and how dare our representatives push it through. In the Oklahoma Lottery case, you have quite the opposite. Yes, a legislative decision to put this on the ballot but the people clearly spoke.
My head spins a little bit, as it seems inconsistent. Why are we to trust the people to make decisions on health care but not to make decisions on how to spend their entertainment dollars in a way that benefits their state?
Laurie,
That is exactly why I have stated several times that I see little to no chance of the lottery being stopped. If I am not mistaken, the lottery was a big campaign issue for our current governor, Brad Henry. I agree with Trait that our legislature dropped the ball by allowing the issue to proceed to the ballot. However, the only way the lottery could be legitimately stopped is by another state question, put before the people. If it were to pass, then it would mean the people of our state have changed their mind and I can not see that happening, at least not right now.
I am not advocating the legislature go against the will of the people of Oklahoma, but I do lament that we have the lottery in the first place. That’s the real reason I wrote the article.
We’ve had a similar experience here in North Carolina. The lottery was supposed to go to education, but the monies have been used for other projects, governor’s discretion of course.
The poor seem to always be the ones drawn to lotteries, hoping to get out of their plight faster but likely finding themselves digging a deeper hole all the time.
Just because a bad law was passed does not mean that we have to continue down that destructive road.
Let’s look at some side affects that can be tied to the lottery. Higher divorce rates, higher bankruptcy rates, gambling addiction, family problems, other social ills. Are these really things that are good for the state? Does this create a business-friendly atmosphere? Will this attract more jobs? More importantly, does this help Oklahoma families?
No.
Yes, the legislature passed this. Yes, the people voted for it. Does that excuse the immorality of the lottery? No. Does that excuse the social ills brought on by the lottery? No.
Just because it was voted on does not mean we have to continue this self-destruction of Oklahoma families.