Monday, April 06, 2009

Monday of Holy Week


The New York Times
is the latest media organ to get in on the continuing debate over Tennessee House Bill 818, legislation brought forward by Stacey Campfield that would cap the amount of lottery winnings that welfare recipients could receive to $600. The Times and others wonder if this limitation will impact Tennessee's lottery profits considering who statistics are telling us is playing the lottery the most:

Eight states are
proposing that people get tested for drugs before receiving government assistance. Proponents say it’s a health issue but, as demand for these programs surges, it surely sends a different kind of message. Meanwhile, a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings at $600 for people on public assistance. Considering that poor people play lotteries way out of proportion to others and that lotteries are big moneymakers for states themselves (since they take such a huge rake), isn’t Tennessee risking a big loss?

The World doesn't have a problem with legalized gaming or gambling, but in Tennessee there is a State monopoly on gaming, and that literally means that the State is at least somewhat dependent on its own public assistance recipients to fund its "education" lottery. The money these recipients are getting is intended to feed, clothe, and sustain them by providing basic needs because the State presumes that if you are on public assistance that you have some good reason why you cannot provide for those needs yourself. It can be safely presumed that the purchase of lottery tickets was not intended by the authors of public assistance legislation to be considered a "basic need" for which a person must be provided.

One commenter rightly pointed out that those who are complaining that this bill would reduce lottery revenue have obviously never played the lottery themselves:

Capped at $600 or not, people who want to play the lottery will. Most scratch tickets are for prizes less than $1000 and I’ve seen all kinds of people buy them, poor or rich. $600 is more than a poor person had yesterday and doesn’t really reduce their incentive to play if they have a gambling mentality.

This legislation is fiscally responsible because it is not likely that lottery revenues will significantly decrease, since the State makes so much money from scratch-off ticket sales, but it saves the State from having to give a huge payoff to someone who is already receiving State money.

(Hat Tip: In Session)

Labels: ,


At Monday, April 06, 2009 1:35:00 PM, Blogger Steve Mule said...

This isn't fiscally responsible. This is MUDSTICK S-T-U-P-I-D!! If they win, let them win. The more they win the less they'll need welfare, or assistance, or whatever.
This is just mean.


At Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:18:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not mean - this is acknowledging that these people use their meager monies to try and score big. Then who loses? The kids they get it for in the first place. Go Stacey and good Job David

At Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:27:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower...Yes, by all means lets find another way to screw the downtrodden some more. Way to stay classy, rethuglicans!

At Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:37:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The lottery system is a tax on stupidity.

It is a voluntary tax.

Paying voluntary tax for a 1 in 200 million chance to win 2 million is stupid.

At Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight: a blue collar somebody who normally does ok financially loses their job in this economy and is forced to beg for meager scraps of government assistance, then with a faint glimmer of hope they purchase a ticket which wins the 2 million but they can only have $600? When did asking for help become such a sin?

At Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:43:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helloooo... You don't have to give your name when buying a lottery ticket. Should you win, you merely hand the ticket to a friend to turn in.

This bill will prevent nobody on public assistance from collecting their winnings. Campfield is clueless in how poor people get around stupid legislation like this.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map