The Idea of the Oklahoma Lottery - Personal Statement Example

What has Gaming done for Oklahoma? We have a problem in Oklahoma that is coming to the surface to mimic other s. This of is gaming. I see this enterprise to be a problem in many ways because of the addictions and influx of visitors to our state to participate in activities that are not available near their own residences. People from Texas drive in their cars for a day trip to reservations in the state just across the border to spend money for the chance to hit the big prize. Do people truly ever win? Are the cars and big bucks that are advertized in commercials ever truly given away to a person who is down to his last quarter? Win someone wins at the game, what are they doing with the proceeds? What is our state doing with its collection from when visitors pick up a scratch off ticket and not win the chance to be a millionaire for life? The history of gaming is lengthy, with some form of the lottery being in society since biblical times. The first known chance of winning monies occurred in the reign of Queen Elizabeth in Italy during the 1530s. Hill stated in 2003 that it was this first encounter that sparked privatization of lotteries for the nineteenth century with 15 percent going to beneficiaries. In fact, Hill stated that in the 1890s gaming in 35 state constitutions were forbidding lottery operations due to concerns of mortality. Since 2005 more than $187 million dollars has been collected in supplemental funding to educate Oklahoma school children. Supporters argue that an initiative to improve education and conserve state monies were education expenditures are increasing faster than the rate of population growth is taking place can be achieved through the use of gaming (Harp, 1996). In 2004, Oklahoma voted to pass the “Oklahoma Education Act” with all funds to help education from pre-k through college. The Oklahoma Lottery Commission states on their website that proceeds from ticket sales will be deposited in a separate bank account, on or before the 15th day of each quarter, the Oklahoma Lottery Commission will transfer 30% of the proceeds to the Oklahoma Education Lottery Trust Fund. This Trust Fund will be administered by the Office of State Treasury. However, it should be noted that the Oklahoma Lottery Commission defines a lottery as a scheme for the disposal or distribution of property by chance to persons who have paid for a share of interest in the expectation that they will be distributed either money or goods of pecuniary value. Are state lottery revenues gaining popularity in supporting education? States such as our neighbor to the south, Texas – have supported gaming as a source of income for budgets and now according to a 2008 press release, Oklahoma is doing the same. The lottery in Texas does not actually increase the budget; it replaces general revenues that were once set aside for education. This implication is one that has misguided citizens in many states. I hope that win voters went to the polls in November of 2004 that we were not misguided into falling into the same trap that our southern neighbors did. The lottery in Texas has reduced the taxes the government has and lowered its own annual expenditures to replace with a public source of revenue, such as lottery money and taxation on big wins from casinos operated on reservations. The Oklahoma lottery website states that these proceeds are used to increase teacher salaries, develop early childhood programs, provide collegiate scholarships, and construct new educational facilities. This idea from the Oklahoma lottery is great, but the methodology behind the practices according to Cavanaugh in 2005 state that the role of the government is achieving difficulty in this plan. Susan MacManus in 1989 was quoted in Gribbin and Bean’s 2006 article as saying “earmarking lottery proceeds for education is a very effective political gimmick to gain voter support for a new revenue source. But there is little evidence that it solves the fiscal problems confronting schools in those states.” It gives me hope that “the net proceeds of lottery games conducted pursuant to the Oklahoma Education Lottery Act shall be used to support improvements and enhancements for educational purposes and programs and that such net proceeds shall be used to supplement rather than replace existing resources for educational purposes and programs,” according to the state website. Yet, I wonder and ponder the true sense of the issue. All gross proceeds I have learned from the commission website state that they shall be the property of the Oklahoma Lottery Commission. “From its gross proceeds, the Commission shall pay the operating expenses of the Commission. At least forty-five percent (45%) of gross proceeds shall be made available as prize money. However, the provisions of this subsection shall be deemed not to create any lien, entitlement, cause of action, or other private right, and any rights of holders of tickets or shares shall be determined by the Commission in setting the terms of its lottery or lotteries. For each fiscal year, net proceeds shall equal at least thirty-five percent (35%) of the gross proceeds. However, for the purpose of repaying indebtedness issued pursuant to Section 732 of this title, for the first two (2) full fiscal years and any partial first fiscal year of the Commission, net proceeds need only equal at least thirty percent (30%) of the gross proceeds. All of the net proceeds shall be transferred to the Oklahoma Education Lottery Trust Fund.” I question these motives because am I seeing the effects the additional revenue from gaming is providing in my state? Did I receive a scholarship to allow me to attend the school of my choice that was provided by the Oklahoma lottery? I began to question others on my pursuit for answers. I want to know how others truly feel that neighbors from Texas come to Oklahoma to play in our facilities, and then run back across the border to spend monies that were collected in our state to help increase the Texas economy rather than use the money in our own. Have you truly noticed in Oklahoma and Louisiana where gaming facilities are available that the areas surrounding these establishments are poor in nature? Why aren’t the lottery proceeds helping these property poor areas become more affluent? Besides, does the house (casino) always win in the end, regardless of the cause being supported, such as education in this issue? We live in a global economy where we are promoting standardized testing and funds are not readily available for the resources needed to guide curriculum restructuring and professional development for educators. According to a 2003 article by Stanley and French, research is inconclusive on what benefit lottery has on education and further arguments state that lotteries are used to exploit less affluent communities, thus creating addictions which present a major challenge for society to overcome (Moon, Stanley, and Shin, 2005). Sometimes I hear people rumble that they will not buy a lottery ticket because they are contributing to the “poor tax.” I hear that lotteries and gaming cause addictions. I am proud that in Oklahoma we have a way to deal with the challenges that come our way. The historical data from the gaming commission states that “unclaimed prize money shall not constitute net lottery proceeds. The first Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) of unclaimed prize money accruing annually shall be transferred to the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services for the treatment of compulsive gambling disorder and educational programs related to such disorder.” At least we can proudly claim that we are helping our community if and when the time comes that the chase for the American dream has overcome someone who sits in the lonely chair day after day pulling at the lever on the slot machine. According to a 2002 article by Mansnerus, critics argue that using the lottery to fund education will only encourage unhealthy levels of gaming because we are encouraged that lottery funds alone are enough to fund educational endeavors. In Texas, the state lottery debate has fired up because the lottery proceeds go to the general fund which supports many programs, not just education, which has caused concern over the lottery’s true intent. Is the same thing happening in my own state? In 2000, Manzo stated that on average, states with lotteries and gaming spend less of their general fund budget on education than states without lotteries. As lottery and gaming sales are not consistent, we need to treat these funds as enhancements only and not rely on them as a sole source of teacher salaries. After all, Harsh in 2004 stated that if consumers are not buying the tickets and playing in the casinos, then there is no fund available to support the crusade for education. Replacing a major source of revenue is difficult according to a 1994 report by Mackey, because we need to determine the real cost of education in order for school systems to budget for an intrinsic focus to provide for their students. In fact, as politicians continue to pass laws for high academic performance, classroom spending is at an all time low and finding funds for constitutional guarantees to meet accreditation standards has become a concern. Were we as citizens of Oklahoma misguided in to thinking this was for the best as an alternative in financing education as other resources around us are being depleted and positions are being eliminated (Sadowski, 1993)? Financing an education is critical as with the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, states, including Oklahoma, are required to report on adequate yearly progress in meeting proficiency in the realm of academia according to Imazeki and Reschovsky, 2005. What is the overall solution? I think we should really look into our community to make certain that gaming was really what we wanted. Do we want the traffic from neighboring states that access to high stakes gaming brings? Do I want to look back twenty years from now to see a state enriched with knowledge because of hard work and dedication or will I see a school building in the horizon that is a newly named educational center in flashing Vegas style lighting? So far, the evidence from the lottery commission supports that our state is headed in a natural direction for the times we live in and it has ways to help those individuals who get into addictions in which the mind cannot control. It’s a game of circumstance. There has been prohibition against it once before for a reason. I think in times today, we can control the urges that previous generations were not equipped to deal with. Children might attend the school with flashing lights and because of it; they might actually outperform their peers in neighboring states. We might be on the way to paying our teachers better than in Texas. We are on the track to earning a means to put proper textbooks in classrooms that are not fifteen years old. We should be weary though, and not let all of this newfound glory get to our heads and out of control, we do have a state to leave to future generations – and pieces of land that do not have a casino or a store on it selling scratch off tickets. The last thing I would want to see is a trip to Turner Falls overshadowed with flashing lights like a trip to the Vegas strip. The lottery is a good thing despite initial fears. The Oklahoma Lottery Commission supports Special Olympics and the Oklahoma City Blazers hockey team to provide the incentive of a school game day. Works Cited: Cavanaugh, S. (2005). Gaming, tax reform on table in Illinois school aid debate. Education Week, 24(27), 17. Retrieved April 30, 2008 from Academic Search Premier. Gribbin, D. & Bean, J. (2006). Adoption of state lotteries in the United States, with a closer look at Illinois. The Independent Review, 10(3), 351-364. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from Academic Search Premier. Harp, L. (1996). Redoing the math: states push to tie formulas to real costs. Education Week, 15(34), 12. Retrieved April 28, 2008 from Academic Search Premier. Harsh, L. (2004). Alternative school funding models pay off. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.djc.com/news/co/11159909.html. Imazeki, J. & Reschovsky, A. (2005). Assessing the use of econometric analysis in estimating the costs of meeting state education accountability standards: lessons from Texas. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 96-125. Retrieved April 30, 2008 from Academic Search Premier. Mackey, S. (1994, August). The property tax predicament. State Legislatures, 20. 23-27. Retrieved April 28, 2008 from Student Resource Center-Gold via Thomas Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infomark. Mansnerus, L. (2002, April 8). Some see hope in New Jersey’s fiscal plight, for changing taxation. The New York Times. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from Factiva. Manzo, K. (2000, December 11). States hope lotteries will bring lucky budget numbers to education. Community College Week, 13(9), 2. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from Academic Search Premier. Moon, S., Stanley, R.E., & Shin, J. (2005). Measuring the impact of lotteries on state per pupil expenditures for education: Assessing the national evidence. Review of Policy Research, 22(2), 205-220. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from Academic Search Premier. Sadowski, M. (1993). Jobs in jeopardy as schools look for cheap alternatives. School Library Journal, 39(5), 10. Retrieved April 30, 2008 from Academic Search Premier. Stanley, R., & French, E. (2003). Can students truly benefit from state lotteries: a look at lottery expenditures toward education in the American states. The Social Science Journal, 40(2), 327- 333. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from Thomas Gale Power Search. Read More