bamatone.net

Original URL: http://bamatone.livejournal.com/289755.html

Reading this week's TMQ, and the subject of lotteries popped up. The state of Alabama is one of only 8 states without a lottery, and I hope it stays that way. I don't have any fundamental moral objection to lotteries in general. When I'm traveling in Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, etc., I might buy a lottery ticket myself. The problem is how they are administered and how they impact the population.

Some background: In April, Gov. Bob Riley penned this column about the pro-gambling movement in this state. I agreed with him then and now. In it, he exposes the group advocating "legal gambling" as a "small group that will make millions of dollars off gambling," reinforces the state's anti-gambling laws, and (most important, in my opinion) reports the negative effects gambling has on a population, including addiction and higher crime rates.

It's true that the column does not specifically address a lottery - only "legalized gambling" in the form of bingo, slots, and casinos. But the two are closely related psychologically and both have negative consequences.

Cue this week's TMQ.

Nobody cares how much the Donald Trumps of the world blow at the roulette table, and $10 office pools are harmless. But most wagering only brings loss and sorrow to average people; gambling has ruined many lives.

This makes it especially cynical that the NFL had decided to sell sponsorships to state lotteries, producing NFL-themed lottery games with NFL logos on the tickets.

Since its inception, the Virginia Lottery has taken in $20 billion and paid out $11 billion in winnings. This means suckers fork over almost $2 for every $1 that comes back. Some $2.3 billion of the Virginia Lottery money has vanished into overhead, a fraction that will now rise as endorsement fees are paid to the Redskins. ([...] one reason politicians love lotteries is because traditionally there is substantial corruption in the form of unaudited "consulting fees.") Only about $6.7 billion -- a third of the overall pot -- has gone to the ostensible purpose: education.*

[...] considering only about a third of state-run lottery revenue ends up serving a public purpose, lotteries are an extremely inefficient way to raise money for schools. What lotteries are good at is separating average people from their money. PBS says a person is 600 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to win the top prize in a state-run lottery.

The lotteries the NFL is now embracing often prey on African-Americans, the poor and the poorly educated. Consider Texas, for example. This Texas Lottery Commission study shows black lottery players spend an average of $70 a month, while white players spend an average of $20 monthly; those with only high school diplomas spend twice as much on lotteries as those with college degrees; the unemployed as a group spend $40 a month, compared to $26 for the employed. Those making $39,999 or less annually spend $32 to $40 month on the state lotteries, while those making more than $75,000 spend $20 monthly.

Part of the cynical nature of state-run lotteries is that substantial numbers of machines are physically located in lower-income neighborhoods -- especially convenience stores and liquor stores in poor neighborhoods.

To top it off, considering the winner-take-all nature of top lottery prizes, the tiny number who win aren't even necessarily served -- studies show that as a group, lottery winners are less happy than the population at large. Lots of $1,000 prizes would be better for society than one $10 million prize. But the latter is what entices people into convenience stores to throw their money away, and now a taste of that money goes to the National Football League.

*And as if that wasn't enough, there is zero proof that increased spending on education actually improves education at all.