The Oregon Lottery: It Does Bad Things

This is Dan. We were discussing the Oregon lottery at my parent's house tonight, so I decided to do a little research project.

Some fun facts about the Oregon Lottery:

• 2,949,581 adults live in Oregon

According to the Oregon Lottery website (http://www.oregonlottery.org/About/FAQ/Default.aspx):

• 61% (or 1,799,245) of Oregon adults are lottery players
• about 3% (or 88,487) of Oregon adults or 5% of players are "problem gamblers"

According to the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/with_lottery_profits_down_oreg.html):

• about 10% of players are responsible for about 50% of the money the lottery takes in, who lose $500 or more each month
  
• More than one-third of problem gamblers say they've committed illegal acts to get gambling money.
• Nearly half of problem gamblers have considered killing themselves and 7 percent have attempted suicide.

Combining some of these facts gives us some more facts:

• If 61% of adults are lottery players, and 10% of them lose more than $500 each month, that means that 6.1% of Oregon adults lose AT LEAST $500 each month on the lottery.
  
• If over one-third of the 3% of Oregon adults who are "problem gamblers" have committed illegal acts to get gambling money, that's over 29,200 Oregon adults who have committed illegal acts to get gambling money.

Compare this to smoking. According to Oregon DHS (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/addiction/publications/seow/tobacco-profile.pdf), about 13.4% of Oregon adults smoke cigarettes every day, but this number is declining, cigarettes are easier to access and many smokers start before they are adults. A pack of cigarettes costs $3-$5. If someone smokes a pack per day, they would spend a little over $100-$150 each month on cigarettes. They'd have to smoke 4-5 packs a day to match the kind of spending we're talking about with 6.1% of Oregon adults playing the lottery, and at least the smokers get a buzz and keep the pounds off.

The state does offer treatment programs, but only about 1,800 (about 2%) of the problem gamblers got any help through the state last year. Because lottery profits are down, the state is cutting the funds that help with gambling addiction. Hundreds of the small fraction of addicts who actually seek help will be turned away.

The behavior of tobacco companies and other businesses is questionable but makes sense: they make money by giving people what they want. It's very difficult to ask or force a business to stop doing that. However I think it's absolutely wrong for our state government to be the one creating and relying on addiction to fund it's programs. There are a lot of more ethical ways to raise money. The Oregon Lottery doesn't do good things. Regardless of what the commercials say, our state is not interested in making sure people are playing "for entertainment only". Just like the tobacco companies, we're spending relatively small amounts of money on PR campaigns to look like we care when in the end we thrive on addicts.

Dan

PS. Is that Sonya in the video on the right?

taxes, taxes, taxes

disclaimer: this is my opinion on my blog.

First of all, I just want to say that this commercial irritates me:

This line is what does it:

"they say it's only pennies... well, those pennies add up when you're trying to feed a family"

Soda and juice are not what you need to buy to be feeding your family. If someone is buying so much soda and juice that those pennies do add up, then that person is probably buying way more than is healthy for them. Maybe the tax will help those people buy less and not consume so much junk. A "study [in the New England Journal of Medicine] cited research on price elasticity for soft drinks that has shown that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption declines 8 to 10 percent."

That is a good thing, to me. Soda and juice drinks are a horrible way to hydrate yourself and offer empty calories, many actually dehydrate you. If you are thirsty, drink water.

The organization who pays for this ad does have some good points on their website:
"...taxes on soda and juice drinks do not teach our children to have a healthy lifestyle... Even the science shows that education, not taxation, is the key to reducing obesity and improving public health."

I completely agree that education is much more effective than taxing the drinks. I also don't think that a tax should be put on something (like food) for the sole purpose of deterring people from buying the item. For example, the tax on cigarettes isn't there to make people not buy them, it is to help make up for the loss of money that comes from illness/disease caused by smoking. Soda and sugary drinks are also costing the health care system money. Obesity causes many health problems that are potentially fatal. People who make choices leading to obesity should help pay to control the premiums that are rising in part because of them.



The following is another argument against the tax that I mostly agree with and I find much more logical than people not being able to afford to feed their families:

"If you want to pay for health care reform," say Blumenauer, who sits on the House committee that writes tax law, "it's fairest to have every American pay a tiny amount." At the same time, a population that consumes too much sugar and fat is a problem, he says. But rather than focus on soda or french fries or other targets, Blumenauer would attack the problem on a larger scale.

"Why not end subsidies on corn?" he asks.

Corn is the main ingredient in high fructose corn syrup, which gives sugar drinks their sweetness while also contributing directly to the expanding waistlines of millions. Federal subsidies to corn growers vary by year depending on market price and other factors, but under current law, producers are guaranteed a total of at least $2 billion a year.

With so much federal aid, corn prices remain artificially low, which means the cost of a 2-liter bottle of Coke is inexpensive as well. Health professionals say that's a major cause of obesity.
(From THIS Oregonian article)

In the end, soda and juice drinks are not healthy. Most people know this. Should we tax it? Maybe, maybe not. Should anyone be running commercials like this? I personally think not.

Dan Just Wants People to Discuss the Real Issues

This is Dan and I'm going to get political. This post isn't about supporting one side or another. It's about using lies and fear instead of meaningful intelligent discussion and I know that both parties do it. I apologize for the length - I pasted full quotes so you don't have to visit the links.

You may have heard that President Obama is giving a speech to schoolchildren in a couple of days. I have been following this in a few news articles and I decided to look into it a little more today. Apparently a number of states/school disctricts have banned the viewing of the speech due to Republican outcy.

The US Department of Education stated the following about the speech:

(http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html)

"During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning."

They also released some Q and A about the speech:

"Q: What is the speech about?

A: The goal of the speech and classroom activities is to challenge students to set goals, work hard and stay in school. This isn't a policy speech.

Q: Who came up with the idea?

A: The White House and Department of Education collaborated

Q: Is it mandatory?

A: No. The Department is inviting schools to show the address. The choice is entirely up to schools and their communities.

Q: Would the administration be willing to release the speech in advance of its delivery?

A: Yes. The speech will be released on Monday and delivered on Tuesday.

Q: Has any other President done something like this?

A: In 1991 President Bush addressed the nation's students on live television from an American history classroom at Deal Junior High, in Washington, D.C."

To summarize: The President wants to promote education and setting goals, something that President Bush Sr. did during his term. It's specifically not a policy speech.

Here is what the Republican Party of Florida(Jim Greer) has to say about this event. This is currently a featured story on their homepage with the headline "Greer Condemns Obama's Attempt to Indoctrinate Students ":

(http://www.rpof.org/article.php?id=754)

"As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.

"While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.

"Public schools can't teach children to speak out in support of the sanctity of human life or traditional marriage. President Obama and the Democrats wouldn't dream of allowing prayer in school. Christmas Parties are now Holiday Parties. But, the Democrats have no problem going against the majority of American people and usurping the rights of parents by sending Pied Piper Obama into the American classroom.

The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer, so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to American's children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American's youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves."

Apparently the Republican Party read something different on the Department of Education's website than I did. The Oregonian contacted them an asked for the sources that led them to believe Obama would discuss issues such as taxes, banks, healthcare and the automobile industry and they had none. Mr. Greer's comment appears to be an outright lie and the Republican Party has not only failed to retract the statement, but they are featuring it on their homepage.

Aside from what this particular comment, other Republicans have raised concerns about the optional class activity that teachers could do with their classes after the speech. They claim it is designed to force students to write a letter about how they are going to support his policies. This is a direct snippet from the (again, optional) worksheet on the Department of Education's website. Keep in mind that this will follow a speech about the importance of education and setting goals, not a political speech about a policy:


"After the Speech

•Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher‐paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty.
•Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:
What do you think the president wants us to do?
Does the speech make you want to do anything?
Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
What would you like to tell the president?

Extension of the Speech
Teachers could extend learning by having students:
•Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants, puzzle pieces, or trails marked with the following labels: personal, academic, community, and country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in that area. It might make sense to focus first on personal and academic goals so that community and country goals can be more readily created.
•Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals. Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress.
•Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.
•Interview one another and share goals with the class to create a supportive community.
•Participate in school‐wide incentive programs or contests for those students who achieve their goals.
•Write about their goals in a variety of genres, such as poems, songs, and personal essays.
•Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.
•Graph individual progress toward goals."

It is discusses doing what President Obama is asking them to do, which is actually very specific and non political given the context of the assignment. I know the answer to the question! He wants them to set goals for their education. This is not asking them to serve him or agree with his socialist agenda. The Department of Education made it very clear that this is not about policies. It would be political suicide for Obama if he crossed that line. I think it's ridiculous that any part of this would be made into something controversial and scary. Perhaps you still have an issue with the whole thing and you're going to keep your kid at home...go ahead that's your right, but I don't think anyone truthfully say that this is being fairly represented by the Republican Party. I guess we can all watch it or read it tomorrow and see what all the fuss is about.

Many people disagree with Obama about different issues: universal healthcare, cash for clunkers, gay rights, abortion, gun control, global warming, the earth being more than 6000 years old, etc. There is nothing wrong with having a different view and there is a lot of healthy debate going on about those issues. I personally feel that it's wrong to get everybody terrified about a speech that is strictly about promoting education and setting goals. I also think it's wrong to call the President a terrorist, Nazi, Communist, etc. I am a registered Republican and I'm generally for limited government, but I will not support anyone who makes statements like these. I really hope that we can turn all of the garbage into a meaningful discussion about specific policies, and that we can seek to build and not destroy our political system.

If you receive some political literature in your inbox, here is a simple set of questions to ask yourself before you forward it to me:

1. Could this be a lie?
2. Would I feel like a liar if I read this out loud?
3. Does the writer of this content appear to be more of an angry liar than a constructive, informed citizen?
4. Do I just want my party to win, even if that means lying?
5. Am I Jim Greer?

If any of these questions make you say "yes", "maybe" or "kindof," you may not be helping your cause.