The "austerity budget" that Governor Jim Douglas proposed to the
Legislature will lead to some tough calls for lawmakers who are trying
to stretch the state’s revenues to cover its expenses. But Douglas also
suggested leasing the state lottery to a private company, potentially
generating $50 million in revenue. Critics have raised a philosophical
opposition, with Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington) saying the idea
doesn’t pass the "straight-face test." We’ll talk with Pearson and Rep.
Kurt Wright (R-Burlington) about the pros and cons, and take your calls.
Also in the program, news analysis with VPR’s Ross Sneyd who’s been
studying the new passport rules at the border, and we listen back to
some of the voices in the week’s news.
Listener comments
We received a lot of email on the topic of leasing the state lottery. Here are some of the comments listeners sent us:
Pat from Burlington:
Any investors in the lottery are obviously expecting a profit. This profit will be Vermont funds which will be taken out of state. This is not a question of the moral issue of the lottery. This is a matter of giving away future money which would otherwise be spent in Vermont (in a lottery or otherwise) in order to keep us from having to face the difficult choices of supporting our community needs of the moment.
Paul from South Burlington:
They need to lower property taxes. At least the lottery deal addresses that
issue. As a first-time home buyer in South Burlington, my taxes jumped from
$3200 to $4000 in less than one year. They are pricing people out of home
ownership. Do not the Powerball proceeds benefit the Vermont Education fund? Why is that not keeping school spending down?
Ed in Middlebury:
The lottery has been described as a tax on those who aren’t good at math. With all due respect to the governor and his allies, the idea of making a profit by cutting deal with a for-profit company and increasing the state’s ability to augment its taxes by having the taxpayers gamble away more of their money, could be described in the same terms.
Eric from Greensboro:
I had a pithy social studies teacher in 7th grade who told us the
lottery was "the poor man’s tax," and he was right. Kurt Wright is
disingenuous when he calls the lottery just a "revenue stream." It is
a regressive tax revenue stream, and I for one would rather pay *more*
in taxes than foist them off on my poorer neighbors.
Steve from Hartford:
The question is not whether or not we we want the lottery, but whether
we should lease it out. I believe we will lose some control and unsavory elements will get involved as they do in every other vice when they can. Also, as has been said on the program, if we can make more money by changing how we do it, that is a separate question.
It is a predatory practice and the people who buy the tickets are the ones who
can least afford it. They are going to buy the tickets somewhere up to a
point, but to increase it means you increase the problems as well. Vermont needs to maintain a balance. We need to have programs in place to deal with
that if we increase the lottery. That costs money. A private company will not
be spending that money – so that will cost Vermont in one way or another.
But it should still stay completely under state control. Why give away increased future money to make a one-time gain now? Long-term
that doesn’t make sense.