The State Lotteries Role in Financing Education - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2757 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Narrative essay Level High school Did you like this example? Abstract The topic of this research paper is whether or not states should utilize lottery gaming to fund their public education systems. This debate continues to be common and one of great importance à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" especially to heavy advocates of education funding. In the text below, three arguments will be presented to represent both sides of the debate. In opposition of the lottery funding, I will present the arguments that the total amount of money gained from the gaming is actually less than public perception implies, that the funding is only acting as a replacement to general education funds, and that the government naturally develops an interest in promoting the gaming system by tricks and manipulation of the gaming community. In support, I will argue that any money gathered is beneficial to the public education system, that the lottery funds have the ability to act like a new tax while never actually raising taxes, and that, if other states are host ing lotteries, it is beneficial for oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s own state to establish one to avoid losing funding. I will end the research paper with a conclusion, which will included my opinion on the debate. As the statistic stands today, about forty-two of Americaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s fifty states currently hold a state lottery à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" a majority of this number use the gamesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ revenue to fund public education within the stateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s borders. The money gained from these revenues reaches astronomical numbers. For example, as of March of 2012, California had acquired around twenty-four billion dollars through the collection of state lottery revenue. In the last twenty-six years, Virginia has gained at least five billion dollars from lottery revenue. In 2011, Maryland gathered more than five hundred and nineteen dollars. These are just a few of the nearly unbelievable totals of money invested into education through the state lottery. Though hosting a state lottery has instigated some controversy across the country, the funneling of its revenues to fund education is usually, if not always, well-accepted by all parties; therefore, the focus of this research paper will be less about the state lottery and more about the effects that the revenue of state lotteries has on public education and, in some instances, the state as a whole (Strauss, 2012). Because an educated society beneficially touches every part of society, this issue is one of great importance for all citizens of our country. Because educational funding is consistently a topic of great debate, it is vital to have a wealth of knowledge about state lottery education funding. In this paper, the reader will have the opportunity to explore evidence supporting lottery-funded education, evidence that proves unsupportive of said funding, and a critique of the provided arguments. First, let us review the arguments in opposition to lottery-funded education. The first argumen t is that only a low percentage of money actually goes to funding public education. This is far from the current public perception of how the lottery benefits public education. Most of the general populace and, more importantly, the voters, believe that state lottery revenues finance a majority of their respective stateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s education needs. A New York Times article stated, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Surveys and interviews indicate that many Americans in states with lotteries linked to education think their schools are largely supported by lottery funds à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" so much so that they even mention this when asked to vote for tax increases or bond authorizations to finance their schoolsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Stodghill, 2007). However, this is far from the truth. A New York Times study of lottery records and interviews with lottery administrators and analysts revealed that only less than one percent to five percent of lottery revenues are actually going toward funding K à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" 12 educational needs (Stodghill, 2007). In states that specifically earmarked lottery money to benefit education, the funding only accounted for one percent or less of total K à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" 12 funding (Stodghill, 2007). As a matter of fact, a large amount of the money earned is simply going towards keeping the games sustainable as a commercial market through marketing strategies (Stodghill, 2007). The California Department of Education was quoted in its State Fact Book as stating, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Although the public still perceives the lottery as making a significant difference in the funds available for education, it is a minor source that cannot be expected to provide major improvements in K à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" 12 education.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“They think the lottery is taking care of education. We have to tell them weà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢re only getting a few sprinkles; weà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢re not even getting the icing on the cake,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  said Brett McFadden, a budget analyst in California. Judy Hix, a Lubbock, Texas resident, stated, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“There were TV commercials, ads in the paper, signs all over town saying, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Vote for the lottery 100% of the profits from the Texas Lottery will go to education.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ They said the lottery was going to give the money to education. Why are we not seeing thatà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Is the texas,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  2011)? As you can see, a major disadvantage of the lottery is that it fails to provide the support the public believes it should through its revenue. The second argument is that the lottery funds are only serving as a substitute for the general fund, not a supplement. Public perception is that lottery revenue is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“extra moneyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  that goes toward developing an education of excellence in states that host the games. This seemingly proves to soften citizens to the idea of the state opening the games within their borders. O . Homer Erekson, dean of the business school at the University of Missouri, summarized the issue best when he said, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Legislators merely substitute general revenue funds with lottery dollars so the schools donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t really gain any additional fundingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Stodghill, 2007).Basically, states have decided to cut such a significant portion of education funding that the lottery funds à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“are not a boon, they become a baselineà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Rowan, 2013). An example of this issue is found in Virginia, where the education-funding lottery was proposed as a supplemental fund to education. But, the money benefiting education, around four hundred and fifty million dollars, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“is simply a replacement of funds the state has now withdrawnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Rowan, 2013). James Roberts, who serves as a superintendent in the state of Virginia, said, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“It has replaced state general fund revenue, so you could make the case tha tà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦that money either went to transportation, prisons, higher education or to balance the budget. Who knows?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Rowan, 2013) Reflecting just how wide spread and common this issue has become, let us take notice of North Carolina, where some lawmakers are currently moving to take the word à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“educationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  out of the title of the state lottery (Rowan, 2013). As one can see, this disparity between public perception and governmental policy when appropriating lottery revenue is unacceptable, and a reason many are opposed to the state lotteries. The third argument against lottery-funded education is the incentive it provides for the state to promote the games in a government-first fashion in its attempt to gain some revenue, though it may be minimal, for its education fund. This is a more broad argument, but it is important to point out that when the state has committed any amount of the peopleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s money to fund education, it does take some priority and focus from the governmental actors involved. So, as citizens of the United States, where states are continually adopting and refining their lottery programs, it is important to be familiar with the basic logistics of how the games work. Obviously, the main attraction of gambling to its players is the potential of acquiring a prize à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" whether that is money or another reward. So, as gambling stations continually attempt to maintain and attract players, thereà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s an increased temptation to expand the prize of winning. However, expanding this prize directly lowers the percentage of each dollar paid into the lottery that will directly benefit public education in the state (Stodghill, 2007). In addition, and as mentioned earlier, much of the money doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t even benefit external players. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“In reality, most of the money raised by lotteries is used simply to sustain the games themselves, including market ing, prizes, and vendor commissionsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Stodghill, 2007). As one can see, if you arenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t well-versed in how the government enacts its lottery, you may be misguided on why exactly the lottery functions the way it does. Now that we have explored and studied the disadvantages to a state lottery-funded education, let us explore the advantages to the practice. The first argument in support of lottery funding is simply that any financial gains for education from a gaming mechanism is considered a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“plusà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and should be welcomed. Proponents of this specific argument claim that opponents focus too heavily on percentages and trends and too little on the tangible cash that the lottery games bring to public education funding (Stodghill, 2007). à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Too much of the focus in on percentages. My focus is on dollars. You canà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t spend percentages,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  said Gardern Gurney, a knowledgeable source in regards to the New York lottery system (Stodghill, 2007). To put the numbers in more clear and perhaps relatable terms, the state of New York, at one point in the existence of its lottery, pulled in two point two billion dollars in revenue for its education fund in a single year (Stodghill, 2007). Though weà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ve discussed in this paper that state lotteries arenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t truly providing the amount of money the public perceives to be true, any additional money is still money à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" no matter the total amount gained. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Lottery dollars are revenues that the states would not have otherwise,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  said Tennessee Lottery president Rebecca Hargrove (Keteyian, 2007). The second argument in favor of lottery funding is that the additional money essentially acts like a newly implemented tax without ever having to actually increase taxes on the statesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ citizens. As we all know, American citizens cringe at the sound of tax incr eases à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" so much so that political candidates are surely advised to stay away from the topic unless necessary. So, supporters of the lottery argue that one of its greatest advantages is the additional revenue it allows the government without ever forcing an administration to touch a third rail of American politics. While I do concede that this point does closely tie into the first argument provided, I believe it is important to add as a separate advantage. Ms. Hargrove, an advocate of the lottery-in-place-of-tax argument, stated, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“What youà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢d have to know, which is impossible for you to know, is how many dollars education would have gotten if there werenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t lottery dollars. Once a lottery passes, there are added dollars to the bigger pieà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Keteyian, 2007). A final argument for an individual state to support lottery funding is that as long as other states host a lottery to fund their systems of public educat ion, the citizens of a state that has prohibited the games are likely to cross state borders to invest into another stateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s education fund through the gaming; so, as long as other states are doing it, it is hard to justify à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“digging your heels inà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and refusing to comply with this funding trend. Though this argument may seem and may be childish in nature, it is based in practicality and is one worth examining. To further exemplify this point, let us examine the mindset of former North Carolina governor, Mike Easley. Governor Easley established a state lottery as a fulfillment to a promise to the people of his state. As The New York Times reads, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“If some voters in this state frowned on Mr. Easleyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s push to bring gambling here, others were persuaded by his argument that North Carolinaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s students were missing out on as much as fifty hundred million dollars in aid annually as residents crossed t he border to buy lottery tickets elsewhereà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Keteyian, 2007). à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Our people are playing the lottery. We just need to decide which schools we should fund, other statesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ or ours,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  stated Governor Easley (Keteyian, 2007). Though arguments both for and against lottery-funded education budgets are understandable when one steps back and views the issues from differing perspectives, I know it to be essential for the reader to carefully assess and analyze both sides of the argument before formulating a firm opinion. Let us begin by assessing the arguments of those who are opposed to the lottery funding. I believe that the first argument provided, which states that only a low percentage of the lottery revenue actually goes to state education funding, is a decent argument; however, I do believe that the counterpoint that any money is welcomed is equally, if not more, convincing. The only major problem I have with the percentages bei ng extremely low is that this is in direct contradiction to public perception. I believe that the public should be fully aware of the benefits of the lottery to state education before using the gaming mechanisms, and I believe it is the governmentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s job to raise this awareness. The second argument in opposition states that the lottery revenue is simply acting as a substitute to the general fund. I believe that this argument holds a great deal of weight and is probably the most convincing of those presented. If the lottery funding policies were presented as supplemental revenues, they should be just that. The government should not be allowed to replace the general funds with lottery funds. In my research, I did not find a direct counterpoint to this argument. The final argument in opposition is the temptation for the government to manipulate the system to benefit itself and not the citizens through increased prizes to attract more players. I believe that this is a di sadvantage that must be carefully self-monitored by the government. Though I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t think the argument is a convincing enough factor to constitute a reason to oppose the lottery, I do believe it to be one of importance because it directly affects the citizens of each of our countryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s states. Now, let us examine and analyze the arguments in support of state supported lotteries for education funding. The first argument was essentially that any money is good money. As mentioned previously, I do believe this to be a solid argument in support, though I believe that citizens do have the right to, at the least, be informed of the percentage of the lottery revenue funds that actually go to public education. The second argument is that the lottery acts as a quasi-tax increase à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" without ever having to raise taxes. I believe that this argument is not very sound. I believe that if the government believes it needs more money through taxes, it sho uld fight to pass a tax increase à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" not slip in extra money through trick funding and manipulation. The final argument in support of the funding is that citizens will simply go to a state with a lottery if their own doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t implement the system. In concept, I believe this to be a poor argument simply because I donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t believe states should formulate policy out of fear of the actions of those around them. However, in practicality, I believe this to be a decent argument. I know that states struggle to find sufficient funding for their education, so I believe that practicality wins in this argument. After researching this topic and learning more about both sides of its surrounding debate, I find myself in opposition to state lotteries funding public education in Alabama. After learning more about the advantages and benefits of hosting a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“funding lotteryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  of sorts, I do not believe that the pros outweigh the cons. As I stated earlier in this paper, I believe that if policy makers want more public education funding, they should work to find that money without using manipulative techniques slipping in quasi-tax increases and gaming strategies. If the lottery were to be established in Alabama, however, I would strongly support raising awareness to gamers and citizens of the state so that they better understand the amount of money actually going to education and can make thorough, well thought decisions when participating in a state lottery. Bibliography Is the texas lottery really funding education?. (2011, May 05). Retrieved from https://www.kcbd.com/story/14579932/kcbd-investigates-is-the-tx-lottery-really-funding-education Keteyian, A. (2007, September 17). Is the lottery shortchanging schools?. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-lottery-shortchanging-schools/ Rowan, R. (2013, March 05). Gambling with our future: Why the lottery is failing education. Retriev ed from https://www.tuition.io/blog/2013/03/gambling-with-our-future-why-the-lottery-is-failing-education/ Stodghill, R. (2007, October 07). For schools, lottery payoffs fall short of promises. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/business/07lotto.html?pagewanted=all_r=1 Strauss, V. (2012, March 30). Mega millions: Do lotteries really benefit public schools?. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/mega-millions-do-lotteries-really-benefit-public-schools/2012/03/30/gIQAbTUNlS_blog.html Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The State Lotteries Role in Financing Education" essay for you Create order