Another Good Gambling Bill

The NC Senate has put another bill on the calendar, I don't know what will happen to it, but at least it is out there from the get-go. The bill is titled: AN ACT to amend the constitution to provide that if the state operates a lottery, that the net proceeds shall be dedicated to education, and to forbid the net proceeds from supplanting other expenditures for the same purposes.
What it means is pretty self-explanatory, however, specific language and cosponsor information after the break.

The primary sponsor is Richard Stevens, with cosponsorship by Austin M. Allran, Tom Apodaca, Philip E. Berger, Stan Bingham, Andrew C. Brock, John A. Garwood, W. Edward (Eddie) Goodall, Neal Hunt, Jim Jacumin, Robert Pittenger, Keith Presnell, Fred Smith, Jerry W. Tillman, Hugh Webster. A quick click through to most of their websites and you will see they are all Republicans. I think this is a bill that Progressive Dems like Ellie Kinnaird should get behind right away. As a constitutional amendment, this bill will have to pass the state voters. I believe the voters if presented with the language below would vote yes. If we have to have a lottery, then all the proceeds should go over top of current spending.

SECTION 1. Article V of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding a new section to read:

"Sec. 14. State lottery funds.

If the State establishes a lottery, the net proceeds after paying prizes and the expenses of the lottery shall be used solely for the support of public schools and higher education. If the State establishes a lottery, the proceeds shall be used in addition to other expenditures for the public schools and higher education, and the total amount appropriated for public schools and higher education, not including the lottery proceeds, may not be reduced, although for capital expenditures the General Assembly may by law exclude from consideration for a particular unit a year in which local capital expenditures were significantly higher than the norm, either due to one‑time expenditures from reserves or the beginning of expenditures pursuant to a bond issue."


I am so bad

I really didn't get into the lottery argument. It's just not an issue for me since I'm an advocate of personal responsibility. I believe we should help those with a limited ability to look out for themselves, but we can only take it so far. We have to draw the line somewhere. When trying to protect those less fortunate, at what point do we simply start making all their decisions and move them into a central location where they can be housed, fed and educated. Last I checked we have those facilities. We call them prisons.

I mean, we regulate/limit/make illegal gambling and among the reasons is that it is addicting and can ruin lives. I'm all for it as long as we also pass laws that prohibit all forms of tobacco, alcohol (except the rubbing kind), sugar, enriched white flour, chocolate, sex and Lays potato chips. All of these items are addicting and if you live in South Dakota, sex can ruin your life.

On the OTHER hand...I don't believe we allow legislators to pass bills under the guise that they accomplish something they do not, like our "education" lottery. This is a marketing ploy. I can get behind this because so many of our shortcomings can be linked right back to the quality of education our children and young adults receive.

After this lengthy comment I have one question. Can you tell I'm putting off working on my project?

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Got to run, but a few points

1. Yes, I can tell.
2. I share your personal responsibility beliefs
3. If we are going to have a lottery, more funds should go to education than to running the lottery.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.