Arkansas Blog

Stay on this guy's ass, Max.

He's a tinhorn shyster who's devoting entirely too much push to this keno scam not to have a dog in the hunt.

Again, I ask the question:

Qui buono.

Coming to the party a little late?? I believe the editorial position was pro lottery. I don't recall these objections too loudly before now.

ARK. BLOG: Your memory is faulty. We very pointedly did NOT endorse the lottery and gave the reasons why, though we commented that it likely would pass easily.

One quote from the editorial:

"The lottery, inevitably, will require ever greater marketing and ever expanding gambling options to produce increasing revenue. With this certainty comes the fear of casino-style gambling options, such as video lottery terminals in convenience stores. It is fair to contemplate whether the public's government should be in the slot machine business."

Of course most of the commenters were pro lottery as well.

When it was just a regressive tax on the stupid it was a fine idea. Now that they are going for big money with big perks to hand out to all their pals it seems like perhaps not quite the boon it appeared.

Pretty strong stuff OK. No wonder I was confused. But, you're right, it is fair to contemplate.

I just don't think your boys over at the ledge are fair or contemplative, in any way, at any time.

Too late now.

I was among the 64% of Arkansans who voted for the lottery, and I'd vote for it again, keno or not. Let's not forget its primary purpose. As for keno, poker, and all the rest being played in bars and such, my prediction is that it's not going to happen. Not that the world would come to an end if it did, however.

Dammit, how come I lose my pithy comment if I forget to sign in? I was able to sign in, then backtrack and there it was. Now? Nada.

Anyway, let 'em put keno tables or whatever they use in McDonald's. That way you can die broke fast.
(The first comment was better. Loooooonger. You know me. Damn. Is that why you changed it? Picture me stamping my foot. Ok, not really. Heel hurts too much to do that. I'm waiting for some personal injury lawyer to take on the makers of flip-flops.)

I consider myself a die-hard conservative, and you have never made more sense to me. Keep up the good work, Max. This lottery issue needs to stay front and center.

"Let's not forget it's primary purpose." - durangokid

That like saying you'd vote for legalize cocaine -- as long as the proceeds went to education. Terrible argument.

"Let's not forget it's primary purpose." - durangokid

That's like saying you'd vote to legalize cocaine -- as long as the proceeds went to education. Terrible argument.

2008-2009 Cost of Taking 32 Credit Hours (approximate) at UALR

Tution: $163/hour x 32 hours = $5,216/year

Fees: $37/hour x 32 hours = $1,184/year

Books: $100/course x 11 courses = $1,100/year

So, tuition, fees, and books add up to about $7,500/year.

Room, board, travel, and other miscellaneous costs can easily be an additional $10,000+/year, but let's assume for now that students getting lottery scholarships live at home.

The lottery scholarships are projected to be about $5,000/year (assuming a net of $100 million from the lottery for scholarships => about $300 million in gross lottery sales => $100/person/year).

Therefore, even with a lottery scholarship, a student will need to come up with at least an additional $2,500/year ($7,500 cost - $5,000 scholarship) to go to college. This number should be tracked from year-to-year. Ernie P., college presidents, the governor, and the legislature should be judged by this number. If they reduce it over time, they are doing well; if it is steady over time, then they are doing the minimum; but if it grows over time, they should be replaced.

So, how will this number change over time? What will prevent colleges from increasing the tuition once most of the new students come aboard with $5,000 scholarships? What will prevent colleges from increasing the fees, or adding new fees? What if lottery sales decline and the lottery scholarships amounts also decline?

And what about higher education funding from the legislature after the lottery scholarships begin? With a new stream of $100 million flowing into higher education, will the legislature be less inclined to fund higher education within the state budget?

So, will the difference still be $2,500 five years from now, or will it be $7,500 by then? Will college be more affordable or less affordable after five years? ten years?

The Arkansas Times already provided information about the SC lottery. Higher education costs there increased more than lottery revenue could offset them, so college is now less affordable in SC than it was before the lottery started. Maybe it would have been even worse without the lottery, but who really knows---maybe it would have been better because the SC legislature, the governor, and the higher education administrators would not have been planning multitudinous ways to use that new pool of lottery money.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the lottery legislation to prevent this number from increasing over time, which means that the value of a lottery scholarship will possibly erode over time, and college may continue to get less affordable over time. And real solutions to real problems in higher education may be ignored because the lottery will be expected to be the solution to every problem.

I think Libertus is on to something. Legalize grass and use the taxes on it to give legies a bonus.

Talk about a stoned state!

.

Give the dog a home, and the fleas will arrive...

I lived in Florida when the lottery was established there, using the same bait: paying for the education of our dear children. Funny how kids are mentioned only when adults want something, and forgotten as soon as they've served their purpose. In Florida the lottery money (or some of it, anyway) did indeed go toward the education budget. This meant that the money that HAD been available to education could be put in the dog dish for the really big dogs, as had been planned all along. As you can guess, education still sucks in Florida.

When the talk is about how lots of money will be generated, trust that it won't be generated for you.

>>And what about higher education funding from the legislature after the lottery scholarships begin?

A.Hugh that issue was included in the constitutional amendment voters approved by 64%. It clearly stated that scholarship proceeds were not to be considered a replacement for state higher ed funding.

>> A.Hugh that issue was included in the constitutional amendment voters approved by 64%. It clearly stated that scholarship proceeds were not to be considered a replacement for state higher ed funding.

eLwood: Over time, it is my prediction that higher ed will not get the same funding that it would have gotten without the lottery. Every time higher ed asks for something, the answer will be that higher ed is getting a dedicated stream of funding from the lottery, and so there are other, more important priorities in the state budget, e.g., K-12. So, what will prevent the higher ed funding from the legislature from being flat for the next several years, even if more students enroll in college because of the new lottery scholarships?

"That's like saying you'd vote to legalize cocaine -- as long as the proceeds went to education. Terrible argument."

Prepare for a shock: I'd vote to legalize cocaine whether or not the proceeds went to education.