3 ms·
> The lottery picking up the slack so the general fund doesn’t have to do all of it is the whole point. That’s identical to the lottery just putting money dire
by Retric 2y ago
> The lottery picking up the slack so the general fund doesn’t have to do all of it is the whole point.
That’s identical to the lottery just putting money directly into the general fund. Unless the funding source results in an increase in total funding this stuff is pure theatre.
- noqc 2y agoIf a person arguing on hackernews can't understand the scam that requires a 3rd grade mathematics education, bthen I don't have a lot for the general public.
- lazide 2y agoAnd that is why it keeps happening. Bonus: cut education enough, and it even gets easier to do!
- PM_me_your_math 2y ago[dead]
- thaumasiotes 2y ago>> The lottery picking up the slack so the general fund doesn’t have to do all of it is the whole point. > That’s identical to the lottery just putting money directly into the general fund. While that's true, your example upthread seems to obscure the fact rather than illustrate it. Try this one: 1. (19X3) Oregon funds its public school system to the tune of $70 million. This is "not enough". 2. (19X4) Oregon implements a lottery dedicated to funding the school system. In the meantime, it funds the schools to the tune of $70 million. 3. (19X5) The lottery system has been set up; it provides $20 million just for the schools. Oregon makes up the rest by contributing $50 million out of the general fund. Where did the money from the lottery go? Not to the schools. The cash flow table clearly shows that funding to the schools hasn't increased while the general fund is up $20 million. Inflation isn't relevant. Allocations from the general fund are discretionary.