Family Council

Lottery Proponents Do Funny Math

Jerry — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:22:41 +0000

This past week, the Lottery Commission announced its suggestion that, seeing as how the lottery had performed over and above expectations, Arkansas’ college students should be awarded $5,000 scholarships if they plan to attend 4-year colleges and $2,500 if they attend 2-year colleges. There’s also been talk about giving additional scholarship money to students already enrolled in college.

At first, the news media couldn’t seem to decide if the $5,000 scholarship was $5,000 per year or $5,000 total. The latest I’ve heard says it’s going to be $5,000 per year—$20,000 over the course of 4 years—but I wouldn’t be surprised if that number changes before it’s all said and done. That’s because I just can’t seem to make all of the Lottery Commission’s math work.

There Just Isn’t Enough Money for All of Arkansas’ Students

Arkansas’ lottery commission projects that $112 million will be available for scholarships. Additionally, there is another $20 million in tax dollars set aside by the Arkansas Legislature for Academic Challenge scholarships. So right now, the lottery commission says they are counting on Arkansas being able to hand out $120 million in scholarships to students. That sounds like a lot of money until you start looking at just how many students there are vying for scholarships.

According to the 2009 reports on the Department of Higher Education’s website, a little over 23,000 first-time students enrolled in Arkansas’ public colleges and universities in the fall of 2008; altogether there were 155,353 students—freshmen, seniors, and everyone else in between—enrolled in college that year. That’s a lot of students!

Now, when he touted the lottery in 2008, Lt. Governor Bill Halter practically promised every student—traditional and non-traditional alike—a lottery scholarship. Assuming on the high end that Arkansas does end up with a full $120 million from lottery and tax revenue to give away, that means that every student could have about $775 per school year ($120,000,000/155,000 students). I’m sorry, but at a lot of universities, that will barely cover your textbooks.

So you would think that the legislators checking the lottery’s math would revamp their expectations about awarding $5,000 and $2,500 scholarships to every student in Arkansas. They aren’t. Rep. Barry Hyde was quoted in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette yesterday as saying that the 20,000+ students enrolling in college next school year will be able to receive lottery scholarships if they meet the eligibility requirements (a minimum 2.5 GPA and a 19 on the ACT).

How It All Really Breaks Down

Here’s the bottom line: We don’t know how many $5,000 or $2,500 scholarships they plan to hand out, but if they plan to give every student enrolling in college next year one type of scholarship or the other, the State of Arkansas will need $57,500,000 – $115,000,000 for the 2010-2011 school year. But what about the next year? They’ll have to be prepared to re-award those same scholarships to all of the returning students plus another 23,000 scholarships for new students.

Here’s a rough four-year breakdown (assuming Arkansas continues to enroll about 23,000 new students in college each year):

For the 2010-2011 school year, Arkansas will need $57.5 – $115 million available in lottery money for scholarships
For the 2011-2012 school year, Arkansas will need $115 – $230 million available in lottery money for scholarships
For the 2012-2013 school year, Arkansas will need $172.5 – $345 million available in lottery money for scholarships
For the 2013-2014 school year, Arkansas will need $230 – $460 million available in lottery money for scholarships

Those final numbers are virtually unattainable. The Arkansas Lottery would have to sell millions of dollars worth of tickets every day in order to take in enough money to give every Arkansas student a lottery scholarship. It just isn’t going to happen.

They’re All Doing Funny Math, and Here it is

Here’s how ridiculous the lottery proponents’ math really is:

When he first proposed the lottery to the Arkansas Legislature in 2007, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter told lawmakers it would generate $200 million per year for college scholarships; when the legislature rejected his idea, Halter took it to a vote of the people with a promise of $100 million per year in scholarships. He never justified either projection, and we still don’t know why he decided to cut his figures in half.
An independent government agency reported during that time that Halter’s number was inflated, and that the lottery would probably bring in more like $40-$60 million for scholarships per year.
Ernie Passailaigue, executive director of the Arkansas Lottery Commission, says he believes we can count on the lottery’s net proceeds for scholarships to increase each year—even though virtually every state in America that has state-run lotteries saw their lottery revenue decline within the first 4 or 5 years.
Rep. Barry Hyde says we can give scholarships to all 20,000+ students enrolling in college next year if they meet the eligibility requirements (and almost all of them will because the eligibility requirements are so low); it doesn’t seem he’s considered the fact that Arkansas will have 23,000 more students enrolling the next year, and 23,000 more the year after that. There’s just no way the money can last!

Everyone is throwing out different numbers, different statistics, and different projections, but somehow they all think it’ going to lead to every student in Arkansas getting a lottery scholarship. I’m sorry, but math just doesn’t work like that.

Here’s the Bottom Line

They promised scholarship money to every student in Arkansas. Now they’re trying to keep that promise, but the simple fact is that for the scholarship money to continue to flow after next year, they will have to deny scholarships to some students. Truth be told, they will have to deny scholarships to a lot of students.

When it comes right down to it, I believe the lottery’s promises of scholarship money may be just as empty as its promises of wealth and prizes to its players.

Video: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Jerry — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:00:30 +0000

In this video, we take a look at the problems with trying to repeal the U.S. Military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

In Defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Jerry — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:40:07 +0000

In 1993, President Clinton signed into law the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy for the United States military. Now President Obama wants to get rid of this common-sense piece of legislation—at the very time when our military is benefiting from it the most.

The ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy simply states: “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

This policy essentially recognizes that military life is different from civilian life. In civilian life, we put a focus on the individual; military life is exactly the opposite—focusing instead on having a unified fighting force. In a time of war, this concept is especially important, and ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ does a great job upholding this concept by 1) Prohibiting soldiers from asking fellow soldiers if they’re gay; and 2) Prohibiting gay soldiers from ‘coming out.’

In short, lifting this policy would only create disunity in the military; it would put the desires of a small few (the gay community) over the military’s need to function as a unified force. Standards of conduct are in place for a good reason, and repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ would lower that standard on behalf of a political agenda.

It’s unfortunate that President Obama as Commander-in-Chief of the military is more concerned about rewarding the radical homosexual groups that helped get him elected, and less concerned about winning the War on Terror.

The Icy Road Less Traveled

Jerry — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:24:13 +0000

In his poem The Road Not Taken, Robert Frost spoke of the decision to take the “one less traveled.” He ended the poem with the line “and that has made all the difference.” Once again, I was reminded that great reward lies along the road less traveled. Here is how it came about.

This past Sunday morning I had a great time speaking at Danville’s First Baptist Church, and maybe later I’ll write about how good it was to be there. For now, let me tell you about the challenging part of simply getting there. Last Friday’s winter storm left the road from Little Rock to Danville a bit icy. But that’s not all. My wife and I had Saturday night reservations at the lodge on Mt. Magazine, just 20 miles from my speaking engagement in Danville.

Even though the lodge was open, the staff didn’t advise we try to make it, especially not up the south side of the mountain. Being ready for a little adventure, we decided to go for it. The trip from Little Rock to the base of Mt. Magazine was pretty easy in our four-wheel-drive Suburban. The final 10 miles up the south side of the mountain was another matter. Most of the road had not been plowed or sanded and the snow got a lot deeper the higher we went. But we made it to the top.

On the mountaintop, every twig and blade of grass was ice-covered. The trees bowed low under the weight of ice and snow. The parking lot at the lodge was pretty much deserted, and when we checked in we realized that the dozen or so guests who were there were mostly the ones who had been snowed in for a couple of days. Many of the staff had been there for days as well. But we made it. It was really nice to have an entire lodge pretty much to ourselves. A restaurant to ourselves—sit wherever you want in the lobby—go for a walk in the snow and not see anyone—have an entire lodge staff there if you needed anything.

That night, the sky above the lodge cleared, but the clouds settled just below the mountaintop. It was like being on a small island just barely above a sea of white clouds. The full moon reflecting off the snow and cloud tops was so bright that you could read a newspaper by its light. On Sunday morning, the sunrise was like nothing I had ever seen. The bright orange sunlight broke above the vast smooth sea of cloud tops. It looked like you could sail along the clouds all the way to the horizon in any direction. I took pictures, but they don’t do it justice. Like trying to photograph the Grand Canyon, being there is the only true way to fully appreciate it.

We could have played it safe and stayed in Little Rock. No one at the church would have blamed us for staying home. We could have spent the night at an apartment the church owns there in Danville. It was available. We could have chosen a number of other paths, but taking the road less traveled made all the difference.

That’s a bit like the work we do at Family Council. Not many others have chosen the path we are on. But for those who have chosen this path, or any other path God has placed them on, there is great reward along with the toil of ascending to the mountaintop where He wants you to be. I hope and pray that God will direct you to your own “road less traveled.” When you get there, I believe you will find that it made all the difference.

Remember Your Values

Jerry — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:18:14 +0000

As the election season heats up and candidates are vying for your support, I have just one word of advice: Remember your values.

It might seem like a simple message, but it can easily get lost—especially during a time like this. Opinions are flying at you from every direction. TV, radio and print campaign ads have become more commonplace. You might have even received mail-outs from candidates running for local, state, or federal office.

Before donating financially to a candidate, and especially before casting a vote, it is so important that you remember your values. Political campaigns are designed to make you feel good about voting for someone; you will hear all kinds of talking points and promises. Many candidates will appear like they represent your beliefs, but that image could very well be misleading.

That’s why it’s so important to remember your values and vote likewise. If you’re considering a candidate that has held public office before, what is their voting record? Does it line up with what you believe? There’s a good chance that if a candidate votes one way in the past, they will vote similarly in the future.

If you’re considering a candidate who doesn’t have a voting record, have they articulated your values beyond the usual rhetoric? Do they show a deep knowledge of the issues? Remember that many candidates will fail to express what they truly believe in an effort to be more “likable.” This is a consequence of personality-driven politics; it should always be about the issues, but it isn’t. Extra work is required of us to really discover where a candidate stands.

A great resource to find out about candidates is OnTheIssues.org. You can search candidates by state and see where they stand on nearly every issue, from abortion to national security and immigration to gun control. This website would send shivers down dishonest politicians’ spines if more people knew about it, used it, and voted based upon the information. The honest candidates would naturally rise to the top as a result.

I have a filter by which I see candidates—if they don’t make it through that filter, then they aren’t getting my support. With unbiased voter resources, a little common-sense, and most of all, your values, it is possible to vote with a clear conscience. Don’t become a victim of “buyer’s remorse” later on when a politician votes differently than you’d expect. Instead, become an engaged citizen and gather the information you need to make the best voting decision.

And above all else, keep in mind this one simple rule: Remember your values.

More Lottery News

Jerry — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:00:23 +0000

The Lottery Legislative Oversight Committee met yesterday at 1:30 p.m. Though it wasn’t a very eventful meeting, the committee did recommend some changes to current language in the lottery law.

The most notable recommendations are:
- Students with a G.E.D. would be eligible for scholarship money.
- Scholarship money set aside for non-traditional students would be at least $8 million. The original language says “up to” $8 million.
- Current freshmen and sophomores, or “current achievers,” would be eligible for scholarship money.
- The lottery director would have to report the net proceeds of the Arkansas Lottery to the Lottery Legislative Oversight Committee.

Of course, these recommendations have to be approved by the Legislature, but given that these are non-controversial items, they will mostly likely be voted into law. The oversight committee is scheduled to meet on Wednesday at 1:30, so if more changes to the lottery law are recommended, we will certainly let you know.

Video: 5 Reasons Casinos are a Bad Bet for Arkansas

Jerry — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:50:06 +0000

In this video, we take a look at how casinos encourage the expansion of gambling, increase problem gambling, hurt the local economy, stunt economic recovery, and contribute to the breakdown of families.

The Lowdown on the Casino Amendment

Jerry — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:00:39 +0000

In the news, on this blog, and around the state, there’s been a lot of talk about the proposed constitutional amendment to allow casinos to be established in seven Arkansas counties. Since many Arkansans are looking for information about this amendment, I thought it appropriate to give a brief breakdown of what you could be voting on in November. Below are three main objections to the proposed casino amendment.

1. A single corporation would be written into the Arkansas Constitution and given special rights.
Texas businessman Michael J. Wasserman, the casino amendment’s sponsor, wants to leave his mark on Arkansas—by writing himself into our constitution. If Wasserman’s amendment gets the signatures it needs from around the state, and the people vote it into law, Wasserman’s corporation, Arkansas Hotels and Entertainment, Inc., will have a monopoly on the casino industry in Arkansas. Now, expanding casino gambling in our state is bad enough, but the very fact that Wasserman’s corporation would get special rights in our constitution is alarming and wrong.

2. The casinos’ alcohol policy will create an unsafe environment and fly in the face of the will of the people.
In all seven designated counties—Sebastian, Pulaski, Garland, Miller, Crittenden, Boone and Jefferson—the casinos will be allowed to stay open 24/7. The amendment also allows the casinos to sell or give away alcohol to its patrons. This has the potential to turn the casinos into all-night gambling and drinking clubs. Study after study has shown that this type of environment breeds crime, and ultimately damages communities and families. What’s more, Boone County is a dry county, and has been since 1941. Every time the alcohol issue has been brought to the voters, they have chosen to keep the county dry. This amendment would go against the will of the people in Boone County, who have fought hard against private liquor licenses for restaurants and clubs.

3. State government would be virtually barred from regulating the casinos.
The amendment specifically prohibits the General Assembly or any other political subdivision of the state from enacting any legislation, rules or regulations regarding casino gaming. This is like a repeat of Arkansas’ state-run lottery: An amendment forces the government to institute a lottery, but then prevents the government from keeping it accountable. Arkansans know that didn’t turn out well at all. We do not need another unregulated gambling operation in Arkansas. Furthermore, the amendment directs state tax policy to such an extent that the Legislature would not be able to choose how most of the casinos’ tax revenue is used.

Obama’s Spending Freeze Like Selling a Bicycle to Pay for a House

Jerry — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:51:11 +0000

If you had a $5,000 mortgage payment this month, would selling your $50 bicycle take care of it? No, but that’s not what President Obama seems to think.

This Wednesday, President Obama will give his State of the Union Address. One of the items he is expected to propose is imposing a “non-security” spending freeze on Congress for the next three years.

At first glance, this seems like a really good change in policy; congressional spending has been spiraling out of control for years now—particularly in the last year—and the government needs to get its act together before it taxes, spends, and borrows its way into financial ruin. The problem is this “spending freeze” doesn’t sound like its going to do a whole lot.

It’s going to reduce the budget deficit by about 1%. That’s right, our fiscal salvation is going to come by cutting $15,000,000,000 (that’s $15 billion) out of a $1,350,000,000,000 (that’s $1.35 trillion) deficit. That’s according to the Congressional Budget Office (Source: Fox News).

In other words, the government is expected to pay for more programs, salaries, and projects than it can afford with the money it already has in the bank; in order to do that, they will have to borrow an estimated $1.35 trillion. To make that loan more affordable, Obama is proposing to tighten Congress’ belt by about 1%.

That’s like selling your $50 bicycle in the newspaper to help you afford a $5,000 house payment this month: It might work if you can find other ways to nickel-and-dime yourself up to $5,000, but if that’s where your plan ends, you’re just out of luck—not to mention you’re still going to have to find a way to scrounge up $5,000 again next month.

And let’s not forget government-run health care. Projections on its cost run anywhere between $1 and $3 trillion. Public health care has been such a flagship of the Obama Administration that I can’t imagine him putting it on the sideline in favor of a spending freeze; since the freeze doesn’t apply to Medicare and Medicaid, I can only assume this means they’re planning to classify the proposed health care reform under one of those programs, and use that to justify upping the deficit.

The problem is attitude. Congress has been living beyond their means for so long that cutting the budget by $15 billion feels like a lot; and while $15 billion is a lot of money, it’s minuscule in comparison to the $1.35 trillion deficit we’re facing this year and the $12 trillion debt our country is already lugging around.

No Related Posts

Dogs Chasing a Car

Jerry — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:31:11 +0000

Ever see a dog chase a car? Ever wonder what he would do if he caught it? I saw that Shaggy Dog movie when I was a kid. Everyone knows in real life dogs don’t drive, but they love to chase cars. That’s what our political friends remind me of. Democrats and Republicans, both look about the same to me these days. One party chases the car down the right side of the road and the other down the left, and the ones running down the middle usually end up as road kill.

Propelled by “change we could believe in,” Barack Obama and company chased the car and caught it last January. Having already captured the House and Senate, things just couldn’t get any better for the Democrats—and they didn’t. The got worse—a lot worse, In fact, looking back, last January’s inauguration day seems to have been the high-water mark for Barack Obama and his party of change.

What a difference a year makes. Blanche Lincoln sides with Obama. Eight Republicans jump into the race against her. Vic Snyder pulls the ripcord and three Republicans and seventeen Democrats eye his seat. John Boozman considers movin’ on up to the Senate race, and Asa Hutchinson begins polishing his old Third-District runnin’ shoes. Marion Berry heads for the exit ramp as a whole pack of D n R (do not resuscitate) replacements eye his seat. Looking to run for something, Bill Halter, Dustin McDaniel, Shane Broadway, Gilbert Baker, Joyce Elliott, Kim Hendren, Bob Johnson, and bunch of other political types are hoppin’ in the truck headed to what is shaping up to be the biggest political coon hunt in a long time.

The hounds are baying and I can see the dust from a car comin’ down the road. They’re all excited about the chase. But I’d like to know what they’re going to do with that car once they catch it.

Video: 2010 Election Prospects

Family Council

Lottery Proponents Do Funny Math

There Just Isn’t Enough Money for All of Arkansas’ Students

How It All Really Breaks Down

They’re All Doing Funny Math, and Here it is

Here’s the Bottom Line

Related Posts

Video: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Related Posts

In Defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Related Posts

The Icy Road Less Traveled

Related Posts

Remember Your Values

Related Posts

More Lottery News

Related Posts

Video: 5 Reasons Casinos are a Bad Bet for Arkansas

Related Posts

The Lowdown on the Casino Amendment

Related Posts

Obama’s Spending Freeze Like Selling a Bicycle to Pay for a House

Related Posts

Dogs Chasing a Car

Related Posts