Arkansas Blog

There are 75 counties and he can only find 13 judges? There are at least 18 mayors in Washington and Benton counties alone and he can only find that many statewide? Has there been any indication on payout and overhead? The Morning News had a $100 million/year for scholarships quote today, but last year Oklahoma had only $65 million and they have 25% more people than us.

Max -
Speaking of spin, did you catch the DoG's reference to Mike DeWine, ex-senator of Ohio as a Democrat in discussions about some hanky-panky in his office between the staff (and the federal lawsuits that followed)? Is that standard procedure over there or just an error?

According to the Oklahoma Lottery Commission's annual financial report for the year ended June 30, 2007, the Oklahoma Lottery contributed $69.3 million to education in FY 2007. Since ticket sales began October 12, 2005, the Lottery has provided $138.3 for education. Think about it: $138 million to help young Oklahomans go to school. Tell me again why a lottery would not benefit Arkansas students.

Incidentally, Don and Joyce Harvey of Muldrow won Oklahoma's Powerball drawing June 27, 2007, the largest to date at $105.8 million. They bought the ticket in Roland, off I-40 just over the Arkansas state line. They chose the cash option and will receive approximately $33.7 million after withholdings. Nobody (students OR ticket buyers) wins with a lottery, right?

And how much did the people of Oklahoma pay to get that 63 million?

OK lottery total revenues 2007: $215.2 million
Transferred to education 2007: $69.3 million
Percentage of lottery used for education 2007: 30.7%

Oklahoma population 2007: 3.6 million
Lottery expenditure per person 2007: $60

Arkansas population 2007: 2.8 million
Lottery revenue if everyone spends $60/year: $168 million
Amount of lottery used for education at 30.7% of total revenue: $51.5 million

BILL HALTER'S LIES: $49.5 MILLION/YEAR

Wow! Think of it: $51.5 million to help young Arkansans get an education. $51.5 million that's not available today! Wonder how much of that $215 million in FY 2007 Oklahoma Lottery revenues came from Arkansas ticket buyers?

Whether it's $50 million or $500 million more -- it's still more than what we now have and it doesn't cost taxpayers a dime! We need to catch-up with other states and stop funding the education of their children when ours need help. I am also impressed that all of these people have endorsed. It's rare that elected officials especially county judges come out and publicly support an effort like this. I can't wait to vote for our own lottery!

Great, then if it's $51.5 million say it's that and not $100 million. I'll ask again, does anyone have any numbers for what percentage of lottery revenue will go to education? Oklahoma is pretty high compared to Missouri and Tennessee. I'm not against the lottery, but I am against big numbers being pulled out of a hat without any backing.

Ironfortified,

I don't understand your point. I don't think it matters. If the lottery "only" generates $50 million in new scholarships for our kids, who cares about the overhead expenses that are not included in that $50 million? $50 million is better than zero which is where we are right now while other states rake in the millions. Halter says he thinks we'll make $100 million per year just for scholarships after all expenses have already been paid. Even if Halter is off on his projection, it simply does not matter. It will still be a net positive and will mean more scholarship money for Arkansans. Any new money for scholarships without raising our taxes is a win-win for us. Arguing in opposition to that basic fact is kind of silly, no disrespect intended.

Any dumb ass should know that government only getting a third of 215 million dollars is not effiecient or a good deal. Why not just raise taxes 50 million to pay for scholarships? You people act like the money is coming from heaven. Over 100 million dollars will be wasted.

Trueblue, you don't think that as voters it's important for us to have all the facts (or at least some sound projections) before voting to amend the constitution? If we were really serious about this, couldn't we all agree that raising our taxes $20/year/person is infinitely more reasonable than setting up another state bureaucracy that extracts $60/year/person (usually from people that can afford it the least) for the same benefit? Thinking that some magic ballot issue is going to solve our education problems is kind of silly. Willing to vote for that ballot issue on faith is ludicrous.

Oklahoma started their lottery in late 2005. Let's look at a more established lottery like Georgia. GA allocates their net proceeds to scholarships, Pre-K, and technology grants to train teachers & improve facilities.

These are the latest figures available on their website:

GA lottery total revenues 2006: $3.178 billion
Transferred to education 2006: $822.40 million

Since 1993: 1 million Georgia students received a HOPE scholarship
Since 1993: 860,000 4-year olds have attended Pre-K
Since 1993: $1.8 billion in computer and technology grants.

Other fun facts:
Missouri: $19 million a year from lottery tickets bought by Arkansans crossing the border
Oklahoma: $11 million a year from lottery tickets bought by Arkansans crossing the border

Voter galore that's even less percentage than OK so what's your point? Why waste two-thirds of the money on an out-of-state lottery company and prizes? A lottery is nothing but a gimmick. Why should Arkansans pay 3 times more than the benefit they''d get?

The average Georgian (man, woman, and child) spends $325 annually on the lottery. Do you think that's going to happen here? Arkansas money going to MO and OK make up .02% and .05% of the total lottery revenue in those states. It's almost not worth mentioning.

In looking through reports on states that have lotteries there are great variances in the amount spent on the lottery as a function of per capita income. It's hard to compare Arkansas since our income is lower than any state I could find. Georgia had the highest at .0138% and Oklahoma and New Mexico the lowest at .003%. Louisiana was .004%. If Arkansans spend .004% of income on the lottery then total lottery revenue will be $213.4 million of which about 30% will go towards education which is $64 million.

Again, I'd really just like lottery supporters to put out real numbers instead of hopes. If someone were to back up a claim of $60 million/year for education I could support that. Halter is doing us all a disservice by putting that $100 million out there and not backing it up.

How about this for a common sense approach, kids? People like lib, who are concerned about me throwing away my money and want to protect me by opposing the lottery, can go to the polling booth and vote against it. If it passes, anyway, lib will exercise his right to refuse purchasing lottery tickets. And, if lib's kid is one day offered a lottery scholarship, lib will do the honorable thing by declining it. That way, everybody's happy.

Ironfortified,

You seem to know a lot about lottery revenue projections. So much so that you dispute how much revenue Bill Halter says the lottery will raise. How do you know he's wrong? As I recall, he did not reach that number arbitrarily and did have reasoning for it. But apparently, you claim to be igorant of the facts because you haven't been educated by Halter, and yet you somehow know in your own mind that $60 million per year is more accurate. Me thinks you are a shill for the whackos fightint the lottery.

Just so everyone knows, in my mind, a net positive for more scholarship money is a win. For those of you who say find the money another way, tell me how. There isn't a way without raising taxes. For the folks who are upset that some money could be "wasted" in overhead let me just say this: overhead expenses aren't being paid with our taxes so it should be a non-issue. Plus what you call "waste" I call spending money on a new Arkansas industry that will hire people to run the lottery while the profits help Arkansans attain a higher education. If you don't support the lottery, don't vote for it! When it passes, don't buy-in to the lottery! Follow those simple instructions and all of your problems are solved because you'll have nothing to do with money lost and the people who work for the lottery won't be annoyed that there is yet another whacko who thinks new jobs and new scholarships without raising taxes is a bad idea.

How many patronage jobs will be created for the out of work offspring & inlaws of washed-up, has-been and term-limited legislators in the new lottery bureaucracy? How many more state vehicles can be purchased from members of the Ark Auto Dealers Assn for a lottery commission fleet to shore up the declining new car sales picture? How much lottery money will flow into the sales tax exempt revenue stream of the newspapers, billboard companies, radio & TV stations? What goes toward scholarships is only a drop in the bucket when compared to the REAL benficiaries of an Arkansas LOOTERY!

Most states have a cap on lottery expenses.

I have found that the breakdown is usually somewhere around 32% profit, 9% expenses, and 59% prize payout.

Sounds pretty good to me. This way I can stop spending lottery money in Missouri, Tennessee and Texas.

Trueblue, I do know that Halter's $100 million number (and if you can find any information for how he came up with it please share it with me) is optimistic bordering on absurd. From looking at census reports and financial statements of states with lotteries, I do know that the poorer the state the less its citizens spend on the lottery. We are both poorer and smaller than Oklahoma yet Halter's estimate for Arkansas is about 40% higher. How did he come up with that number?

After digging through the Lt. Gov's website I came across this:

http://www.hopeforarkansas.org/index.html

Again, it just notes $100 million. No indication of how they got that number. I have written them trying to get more information, but this all sounds like "greeted as liberators" to me.

The most recent report I have been able to find that included every states numbers was from 1997, at my name.

The average breakdown was 55/12/33.

I guess you could say nearly 88% of the money went right back to the people. Give me a lottery!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Halter's number was pulled out of his ass. The data on all other lotteries indicate a number MUCH lower than 100 million. Why 100 million then? Well that's the best sounding number with an extra zero.

It really doesn't matter how much it raises though. What people need to realize is that it's a very inefficient way to raise money. Imagine if the state only got 30% of the sales taxes we paid? People would be up in arms.

The only argument for the lottery is that it would be a "voluntary tax," but it's inefficiency greatly outweighs that argument.

Not just a voluntary tax, but a voluntary tax marketed to the people who are least likely to be able to afford to pay it, with the argument that 1/3 of the money raised will help educate them enough not to play the lottery. Nice.

"It really doesn't matter how much it raises though. What people need to realize is that it's a very inefficient way to raise money. Imagine if the state only got 30% of the sales taxes we paid? People would be up in arms." - liberal dem

Dear Liberal Dem,

It is not an ineffecient way to raise money. It is highly efficient because it costs taxpayers ZERO DOLLARS. Your line of reasoning is so conservative sounding that I dispute the name you are using. You are no liberal. You are no Democrat. Who are you? You one of those right-wing nuts we can't stand to see polluting this blog?

I think you're a bow-tie, latte-drinking, BMW-driving, arugula-eating conservative who obviously has been hitting the crack pipe a little too often for your own good. Because I am a Dem, my heart bleeds for you and I hope you seek rehab, as soon as possible. You could learn a thing or two about sobriety from Lindsay Lohan. She probably knows more about the lottery than you too! (She unquestionably looks better.)

"1/3 of the money raised will help educate them enough not to play the lottery. Nice."

I have an MBA and I'll be playing the lottery; not that I'll have a prayer of winning, but because I don't mind paying a "voluntary tax" to help young Arkansans finance their schooling. Nice, indeed.

Hey, ironfortified -

I just did a google and found something to rebut one of your points. You said Georgia spends $325 per person on the lottery and that Arkansas would never come close to approaching that. Well it turn out, it doesn't need to:

From Jan. 24th - 2006 - Stephens Media - Arkansas News

reported:

"Still, if Arkansas sold $138.86 worth of lottery tickets per capita and kept an average of 27 percent of the sales for education, as Missouri does, the state would see more than $100 million for school spending."

That is far less than $325 per person, annualy.

This tells me that Halter's estimate is pretty reasonable. I guess that's bad news for all you right-wing haters. ha!

Anyone that votes for a lottery is insane and can't see the forest for the trees.
No wonder the dollar is almost worthless.

trueblue (jackflowers), I don't know you (never seen you blog on here before this thread) and you don't know me, so I could care less what you think about me. People start attacking others personally when they know they can't make their argument.

Everyone that plays a lottery is a taxpayer, so yes this will be paid by taxpayers. They will pay 3 times more than what they will get back as a whole. The only people that benefit from a lottery are the very small percentage of winners. A lottery gets money from the poor to make a very few rich. Nothing Democratic about that.

chasv, I've done went and changed my mind. I'm now against the lottery, and I owe the change of heart to you. If hit's not good 'nuff fer you, hit ain't good enough fer me. Nawsuh! Never let anybody tell you that you ain't influential, bud.

I think this thread shows that the lottery argument doesn't stand up. It will probably pass though because it will be sold as getting something for nothing. Voters fall for that one every time.

"Still, if Arkansas sold $138.86 worth of lottery tickets per capita and kept an average of 27 percent of the sales for education, as Missouri does, the state would see more than $100 million for school spending."

That is far less than $325 per person, annualy.

This tells me that Halter's estimate is pretty reasonable. I guess that's bad news for all you right-wing haters. ha!"

Missouri's per capita income is significantly above Arkansas. You need to look at states like Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana (which still have per capita incomes higher than Arkansas) to get a better idea of what you're actually going to see in terms of lottery revenue. Missouri's population spends more than twice what those in Oklahoma do on the lottery. Or you can just continue spouting Halter numbers. In the past week I've been accused of being a racist shill and now an anti-lottery shill. Sorry I don't believe in your fantasies. Still waiting on the lottery people (or anyone on this board) to tell me where Halter's numbers come from. I do appreciate your personal attacks though. They really strengthen your argument.

Hey kid if I hadn't gone past the sixth grade I couldn't figure high nough to understand this ain't profit it's like throwing money down the toilet.

All of you hillbillys who's for this lottery would get mads as hell if your employer decided to pay you 27% of your salary.
Durango, you are one smart gun slinger.

Durangokid says he has an MBA and will not mind paying for other's kids to get a college degree.

Yeah, but what about all of those folks out there with GED's who can't really afford to play the lottery, but who will be doing it anyway? Who's going to pay to feed their children?

The taxpayers, that's who.

until today i hadn't posted a comment in a very long time. i'm not sure if i should be happy or regretful for today given all the repsonse. of course my personal attacks were actually in good clean fun. i know you don't smoke crack. you snort cocaine which is why you mistakenly get so excited when Max posts an "open line" (rimshot, please! But seriously folks! Take my wife please!)

but i honestly believe some of the posters here are fishy on this topic. y'all have Democratic monikers (names... i know you'd ask what moniker means) but your comments are right-wing. others don't even pretend to be dems. they're obviously open right-wingers.

regardless of that, all y'all arguments make little sense. you complain that money is wasted on overhead, yet 1) no taxpayer money is spent on this lottery; 2) after expenses, the profit margin is well over 20-percent which for any for-profit company demonstrates not a waste of money, but a healthy investment with a very successful and profitable return on the money (i know this because I'm a smallbusiness owner who has lots of Internet sales and my target profit is 5-10% per year)

Also, some of y'all talk about the poor people taking food out of their children's mouths and spending lots on a lottery. Here's why this is a silly non-starter argument: 1) people are already playing the lottery; 2) if poor people were wasting all of their money on a lottery and their kids were starving, Oxfam would be headquartered in a lottery state and there would be an epidemic of children starving to death, this obviously is not the case, but y'all are exaggerating this as a problem when it really isn't a significant issue in any state that i have heard about; 3) who are you to tell anyone what they can or can't buy? if not the lottery, why not prevent poor people from buying cigarettes, alcohol, McDonald's cheeseburgers, candybars, premium toiletpaper, cable television or anything else that you, THE HIGH AND MIGHTY MORAL DECIDER, chooses to eliminate on a whim?

finally, it's the thinking in arguments that y'all make which has kept our state behind in so many areas. it's time our state advance out of the 19th Century. If you don't support a better future for your fellow Arkansans or have moral issues with a lottery then I suggest you move to the Vatican or back to the Stone Age.

But please allow the rest of us to make our own decisions and to make our state better. All of the states surrounding us are benefitting from a lottery and from our citizens buying their tickets. It makes no sense why we wouldn't want to keep our money here in Arkansas where it can help our own people.

Arkansas deserves a piece of the lottery jackpot so more of our own students can lead better lives by working in better jobs that pay more and have benefits.

I guess it's fine if you have no problem with redistributing wealth from poor people to a select few. It would still be more efficient (3 times) and fair to raise taxes to pay for government needs.

lib2012, surely you don't think the General Assembly and the governor have the guts to raise taxes for something as piddling as higher education, do you? Not gonna happen, friend, even when the economy gets in much better shape than it's in now. Old Blue Eyes is already concerned about taxes. As you probably know (wink, wink), millions of people in Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, and all those other lottery states are filing for bankruptcy because of increased taxes to feed and clothe the youngins of the poor who are spending their scare dollars on lottery tickets. I'm just worried plum sick about 'em.

I don't think they'd have to raise taxes for 60 million dollars. There's plenty of waste to come up with that. If this passes, what's to stop the legislature from cutting existing educational funding? That is what usually happens. Does this measure contain a clause to prevent that?

Cut the property taxes out if you're going to have a lottery that funds schools and colleges.
Schools are like a big fire it can't get enough fuel to keep it going. If all the taxes went to the schools they'd still want your arms and legs.

Actually chasv you bring up another reason why the lottery will not work. People will be less likely to support local taxes for education if they know education is getting more money from the lottery.