 FAN 2-20-2007 |
In this issue: Legislators are here to help you - a lot! Legislators are here to help you - a lot! Did you have a strange feeling of insecurity last week that you just couldn't put your finger on? If so, then save yourself a trip to the therapist. Your problem was emanating from what was going on at the Capitol - legislators filed more than 2,200 bills to make your life better, putting them on track next year to break the two year total bill record of 4,052! It was only three General Assemblies ago that the total number of bills filed during the two year period was only 3,256. Expecting more by expecting less? Sounds a bit funny, huh? Well, comments last week by our Governor seemed, on their face, to be at odds with some earlier statements. If you will recall, in our last FAN we asked how the Governor and the legislature would make sure the proposed new tax money for education isn't "just throwing good money after bad," as they say. And you will recall that that we noted the Governor's proposed solution appeared to be "raise standards." That sounds great. However we noted that kids quickly pick up on whether adults mean what they say when they "make the rules." So we raised the question: "Will we have higher standards with consequences or just higher standards on paper?" Perhaps we can get a glimpse into the answer to that question if we compare the Governor's comments in announcing his "higher standards" for schools with his comments made in connection with the abysmal rate at which students retain their college lottery scholarships. In proposing higher standards for secondary schools in his State of the State speech, the Governor said: Something I believe - something I've learned as a father - is that children are very good at responding to expectations. If we set them low, they respond low, if we set them high they respond in kind. I spoke at my inaugural about wanting Tennesseans to expect and demand more; what better place to start than with our schools and the children they teach. We need to raise standards and expectations...(emphasis added) Well said Governor and we concur in and applaud the wisdom of your observation. But, when confronted with the Tennessee Higher Education Commission's report that "64 percent of college freshmen who in 2004 received the lottery scholarship had lost their awards by fall 2006," he said of these students, presumably more mature than those in secondary schools of whom he said we should expect more: One of the things I would like to do is look at what is some realistic way to be a little more forgiving to the fact that maybe people do get in trouble who are going to do just fine in college and life. (Chattanooga Times Free Press 2-10-07) Let me get this straight. Tennessee has already departed from the 3.0 grade point requirement used in other state's lottery scholarship programs, allowing freshmen to earn only a 2.75 grade point average to keep their scholarships. However, to retain the scholarship for their junior year, they must get their grade point to up to a 3.0 by the end of their second year. What is the reason for this year of grace for freshmen? I recall the debate well - kids need some cushion because that first year is hard and for many it's the first time away from home and they may not be as serious as they need to be. That is all true - but does lowering the standard prepare them for the harsh realities of the employ-at-will work world? I agree with the Governor's first comments: "if we set ‘standards' low, they respond low." (emphasis added) Did the law contribute to the low lottery scholarship retention rate? As my former Senate colleague Bob Rochelle was prone to say, "Let's not trick people" which, I think, is what we did with the year grace period. We set the first year standard low and gave them some room to "mess up." Then 64% of them found out that catching up in that second year was too hard. Question: Is it possible we would have a lower failure rate if students knew there was no margin for error and the state did not hold out the illusion that you can "make it up the second time around?" So, are we going to go "easy" on the supposedly more mature, college students, but be tough on the middle school kids, many of whom face tremendous odds and challenges, and hold them back if they don't meet the higher standards? Or will the higher standards in our secondary schools be just words on paper? Are we getting our money's worth? Another question no one seems to be talking much about is that, since its inception, the lottery has turned over to education only 27.8% of its gross revenues. What's the big deal? Well, the law says that so long as the Lottery Corporation is maximizing lottery revenue, the "net lottery proceeds shall equal at least thirty-five percent (35%) of the lottery proceeds." However, in the first two years, the legislature gave the Lottery Corporation a "grace period," requiring that the "net lottery proceeds ... only equal, as nearly as practical, thirty percent (30%)." So, 27.8% isn't too far off the "lower standard," but after the second year, the Lottery Corporation was supposed to shoot for 35% or explain why it couldn't maximize sales and hit that percentage. Well, we're in the third year and, as of 11-06, the net proceeds for 2006 were down to 26.5%. And with sales expected to grow faster than the growth in net sales proceeds (see 12/15/06 report to State Funding Board), we're headed in the wrong direction. We're playing more of our dollars and percentage-wise, education is getting less. So, let's not be fooled by the big dollar numbers the lottery corporation is throwing around on its billboards. Education is getting less and less of its share of the dollar played! Let's not be "fooled in an instant!" Will the lottery become a money eating monster? Why do we mention it? Money is money isn't it? Perhaps so. But, during the year in which the lottery was debated, I heard many say that they didn't mind a lottery if the money went to education. And while 100% of a new dollar in tax can go to education and only, at best, 35% of a lottery dollar played can go to education (and apparently only 26.5% as of 11/06), it would seem important that when people give up their hard earned dollar, as large a percentage as possible go to something good - education. The thinking, I presume, is that it makes the pain of losing one's money a little easier to bear. But, here is the ethical rub. We will need X number of dollars for education in order to keep up with all the new spending we are going to do with the proceeds (more preschool, every high school student with a B average going to a community college for free, increasing the four-year scholarship, etc). Unfortunately, the lower the percentage of net proceeds available, the more the state has to convince people to gamble away their hard earned money. I know that those, like me, who opposed the lottery, lost the argument of the day. However, before we start demanding more and more money out of the lottery, I do hope we will think about how much and how aggressively we want the state enticing our citizens to play, with more gambling addictions to follow that tax money, not lottery proceeds, will pay for I hope we will all consider how much "stuff" we want to fund out of the most regressive means of funding state government we have - the lottery. The lottery's redistribution results Some lawmakers have already noted some "moral dilemmas" flowing from the lottery scholarship program, namely the dollars being played by lower income communities and racial minorities and the high percentage of dollars that flow to middle and upper class Caucasian students for college. Students from families earning more than $96,000 a year maintained their scholarships 63 percent of the time compared to 42 percent from families earning $12,000 a year or less. Actually, this trend in other states was well known at the time the lottery was being debated and some who now complain the loudest were silent then and voted for the lottery. Where are the statesmen like Churchill who will sound the alarm in the midst of a clamoring majority? But that's history. The issue is what we do now. In this I am reminded of a statement by C. S. Lewis: Progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning(sic), then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. In view of the ethical and moral issues raised by using a regressive fund-raising method that transfers much needed dollars from the economically disadvantaged among us to those with greater economic ability, where is the "wrong turn" that we need to go back to in order to make "progress" on rectifying this wrong? Some would say, "There is no wrong. Playing the lottery is voluntary. Those who don't like its results shouldn't worry. People choose to play when they know they won't win, and the money is going to someone else's kids who may not need it as much as their own." I've certainly heard that. And where the idea of individual autonomy is the guiding principle to the exclusion of the communitarian nature of Man, that is a fine argument. But, our experience demonstrates that we are not just a collection of Hobbesean individuals who exist only for our own benefit; we are also social creatures. And, if we accept the latter idea, then what happens to my neighbor does affect me - "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." This is sometimes a tough balance - individual vs. community; libertarianism v. statism. An emphasis on one extreme to the exclusion of the other will produce problems because it ignores one aspect of our humanity. What's the road we want to be on? Men are known for not asking for directions. So, I hope you will excuse me for stopping to ask for directions on behalf of the lottery. When I stopped to ask the wisest man who ever lived for some direction, Solomon told me this, "he who oppresses the poor is a reproach to his Maker." Yuck. "Reproach" is a pretty ugly title. So, maybe the solution is to get more people to play more dollars and redistribute the 27% net proceeds to more people.... Or is it? Do we just plow straight ahead at an even faster speed? And perhaps this is a good place to end. Hopefully we will all ponder what we're going to do with what we've done and make sure we like where we're going. We've been on the lottery road for a while, perhaps it's a good time to stop and make sure we've got the right "directions" for the destination we seek. In the meantime, I'll enjoy reading your emails. Have a great week. Family Action Council is tracking certain bills that its sister organization, Family Action of Tennessee, has asked our legislators to carry. While the web site is not yet complete, if you'd like to know some of the issues we will be watching, go to our web page at www.factn.org. ###
|
