Cincinnati lobbyists banning stuffed animals and ski ball

I am a lawyer, after all.

But that's not my point.  You want to gamble, fine.  You want to legalize gambling, fine.  But doing so under the guise of some public good because a paultry amount goes to help education is just bad policy.

OMG, I just realized that I'm turning into Dwight's girlfriend in "The Office."

I certainly wouldn't call nearly one billion a year a paltry amount.

I think you a missing the point a bit. People like to gamble and they are going to do so whether it’s on the river, in Indiana, Michigan or Ohio. Why should we allow the Hoosiers and Wolverines to benefit from the taxes on Ohioans' money?

Why not make sure that money stays in Ohio and funds scholarships for EVERY student in Ohio within 12 years?

Let me know which, if any, of these things are not true:

1) Less than 1/3 of the net profits of the slot machines goes to pay for the scholarships.

2) That it will authorize over 30,000 slot machines total at Ohio's seven horse racing tracks, two locations in Cleveland, and one in Cincinnati.

3) Six percent of the slot machines' profits will go to fund nothing more than the race tracks' purse funds.

4) That the amount going to subsize other forms of gambling (see Item 3) is six times the amount that will go to fund gambling addiction services.

5) That all proceed winnings and wagers will be immune from taxation.

Are any of these things I mentioned not true?

I would personally rather pay for the education of Buckeye state children than pave the roads in Indiana.

And according to the language certified by the Ohio Attorney General's office, only thirty, not thirty-two, percent, goes to the scholarship fund.

The addiction services is only 1% of the total revenues generated even though the proposal spends more money bringing in over 30,000 slot machines at race tracks that will have subsized purses to appeal even more to gamblers.  I can't remember a greater expansion of gambling in Ohio.  I feel safe in saying it surpasses the Lottery Commission.

To say it goes to promote horseracing is a little disingenious.  It goes to subsizing tracks by taking money from one gambling activity and put it in the pot for another.  The "promotion of horseracing" is a little more indirect.  It's corporate welfare for race tracks who cannot stay competitive on the open market now and who are going to get $1.6B in new annual revenue tax-free if this thing passes.  Of course, they won't also turn around and take the $1.6B and make capital improvements and seek further tax deductions and credits (and job credits) as well.

Does $2B in casinos out of the state=$2B in slots?  No, because most Ohioans who gamble out of the state probably don't play the slots.  And people are still going to go to Vegas for the sake of going to Vegas.  So Ohioans aren't going to recoup that $2B "lost opportunity" cost.  Also, how do you figure we have $2B in lost gambling, but the slot machines would generate over $2B?   Are people from Indiana, Michigan, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania going to go out-of-state to use Ohio slots?  Doubtful in any significant numbers.  Even by your own "conservative" estimate, Learn and Earn would generate more revenue than we're "losing," but still be several hundreds of millions short of the $1B promised in scholarship money.

Fine.  I'd rather pay for college education for Ohio children than pave roads (or to be fair, educate children in Indiana).  So amend the amendment to allow the proceeds of winnings and wagers to be taxed at regular income with the stipulation that the money from that revenue be earmarked for education.  Do that, and I'd be more inclined to support this measure.  Otherwise, it appears to be nothing more than a constitutional amendmend to enshire corporate welfare for the racetrack industry cloaked in a politically popular issue.

Of course, the amendment can't change federal tax law, but it can and does change what is considered income under Ohio tax law.

The Learn & Earn amendment states: "No other fees or taxes may be applied to or levied against the amounts wagered or the proceeds of the gaming authorized by this section."

That means for at least state tax purposes, over $1B goes to the owners of the race tracks and other slot machines locations without being subject to Ohio tax.  And the "winners" from the machines don't have to pay any state taxes on their winnings, even if they do have to pay federal income tax on it.  This thing looks more and more like a giveaway with most the largess going to the race track owners and not Ohio children.

Yes, they'll still be subject to federal tax, but that's because the Ohio constitutional can't give away federal taxation to corporations like the Learn & Earn Amendment does.

Of course the amendment cannot change federal law, but it also does not change state law. The clause you are speaking of does not pertain to large amount winners; they would be required to claim their winnings. The clause refers to taxes on the 55% of gross profit that is left over after the 45% tax on the owner/operators. 

 The clause was inserted so that politicians that oppose the amendment could not turn around and tax it out of existence once the voters had passed it. (Think "Governor" Blackwell and the Ohio General Assembly on a power trip.)

Numbers.  Give us numbers.

With one out of every three kids never graduating high school, and 44% of Ohio public university students taking remedial classes, then dontcha think this decreases the relative importance of the "high achieving students who simply cannot afford to attend"?  If they're high achieving, chances are that scholarships already exist for them, no?  At a minimum, their pool of opportunities are already increased because they're coming out of high school as high achieving.

It's those in the middle, as always, that are stuck.

Ohio's brain drain and economic stalemate, as it relates to higher education, has to do with those one in three not graduating, the 44%'s drain on universities' resources and how Ohio employers' needs can't be met.

It's primary and seconday education that needs attention.  The only other population the universities are starting to serve more and more?  Older folks who go back for re-training or more education for other jobs, since their first, second or third ones went elsewhere.  Or who never got a degree in the first place.

under a lot of pressure from "teaching to  (or for) the test" these days. I am convinced that teaching is often as much an art as a science, and if we don't leave room for good teachers to see and use "teachable moments" we all lose. I don't remember doing well on standardized tests as a big deal (although I was a stellar test taker) -- what mattered were the "aha" moments provided by teachers who did something that interested me, got me thinking.

I don't think we can ever get away from remediation -- but we can make it less often necessary, and I don't think it should cost the student or the college -- after all, society benefits when people are educated better. They earn more, and they also do more innovative, creative things.

Interestingly, at the college level, students who had not expected to go to college, but come in via community college or landgrant universities, often do amazingly well.

They are there because they want to be, they bring discipline and focus, they aren't afraid to ask questions -- or to ask for help, they have a sense of self that comes through in writing and research. America has always been the land of second chances, and it is tremendously important in education at every level.

The federal government has found a new way to control high school curricula, by offering Academic Competitiveness Grants that are only available to students who have taken part in "rigorous programs of study," as defined by the feds. I assume that Taft's plans to make Ohio high school curricula more demanding are linked to this. http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/16/rigor

I don't have a problem with encouraging this, but it is being done under Pell Grants, which help low-income students -- so I don't want things to shift so that if you weren't in a place at age 14 or 15 to focus on academics, you'll be shut out of financial aid.