
One Missouri lawmaker has an idea of how to help the state's bottom line - gamble a portion of Gov. Jay Nixon's salary each month on lottery tickets.
The Missourian details a bill by state Rep. Mark Parkinson (R) that proposes deducting $2 from Nixon's monthly paycheck to buy Powerball tickets.
Any potential winnings would be put in an account called "Governor Nixon's Scratch-off, Match-off Fund," according to the bill, which gets a hearing tomorrow.
Nixon's spokesman told the Missourian the bill was silly and had no comment about whether the governor would pony up a portion of his $123,000 per year salary for the idea.
We've written a bit lately about Missouri's budget woes and back-and-forth about the federal stimulus program.
State Rep. Allen Icet, who chairs the Budget Committee, told us that Missouri has to solve its own problems. Icet is a sponsor of the lottery ticket bill.
The Missourian quotes the Lottery Fact Book as showing the odds of winning are one in 195,249,054.
More from their piece:
Rep. Joe Smith, R-St. Charles, chairman of the Tax Committee, said he supports Parkinson's bill, which he sees as a potential boon to the state's budget crisis."I think it's kind of clever," he said. "If the governor were to win it would make it a lot easier for us."
May Scheve Reardon, director of the Missouri Lottery, said her department reviewed the legislation and would suggest two additional amendments: all legislators play Powerball and the governor also play Mega Millions, another multi-state lottery game the lottery introduced in January.
Smith said he didn't think it would be fair to ask legislators -- who are paid just over $30,000 -- to deduct lottery tickets from their salaries, but he said it wouldn't make a large dent in the governor's salary.
fla_kracker
February 23, 2010 12:19 PM
Lottery: a tax against people who failed math
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
February 23, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to fla_kracker
Lottery: The last refuge for people who voted for change to only have less opportunities for the middle class than under Bush.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Subliminability
February 23, 2010 12:22 PM
This proposal represents standard fiscal policy for the contemporary Republican Party, in terms of its sophistication, philosophical soundness, and probability of success.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
February 23, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to Subliminability
Lafferism works if the tax rate is too high. All credible economists think the tax rate is too low for Lafferism to work, but at least in that case the basic theory (that cutting taxes rates can, but not necessarily will result in an increase in tax revenues) is correct. Even though the GOP is getting the wrong policy implication from it.
Here, even the basic theory is false, because the probability of winning is so incredibly low that it's extremely unlikely the governor would ever win in the amount of time the state of Missouri is likely to exist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
February 23, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to Icon
Just recently the blogs I read reminisced about how McMegan admitted that the US had taxrates too low for Laffer several years ago and got shot down by the rightwing editors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
February 23, 2010 12:38 PM in reply to Subliminability
A real Republican would've bet $5. But he did get the part about betting other people's money right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
February 23, 2010 12:39 PM
That would never work. Don't they know that when you win the lotto the Government taxes the heck out of your winnings...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
February 23, 2010 8:42 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Given the way many Republicans approach fiscal issues these days, it wouldn't surprise me if they think that if they win the lottery and then tax it the government will get double the money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 23, 2010 12:46 PM
Hey, it's safer then the capital markets!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uutrinko
February 23, 2010 1:35 PM
Gambling is bad business dude, I mean seriously. What is up with that!
jess
www.complete-anonymity.cz.tc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChrisBerry
February 23, 2010 1:56 PM
Wait...is this the first time a Republican has publicly supported a tax on the wealthy to solve economic problems? Alert the media! ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dr. Dubious
February 23, 2010 2:07 PM
I have a better idea: Use the State's share of current Lottery sales to build a Perpetual Motion Machine. Then, sell the energy it generates to Missouri residents and businesses. This will produce budget surpluses in no time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 23, 2010 2:09 PM
The Missourian quotes the Lottery Fact Book as showing the odds of winning are one in 195,249,054.
Oh, that means winning should be pretty much a sure thing in just -- let's see -- 16 million 270 thousand 754.5 years. Oh, no, wait -- that's assuming one ticket a month; $2 will buy two tickets, yes? So even better, that's only 8 million 135 thousand 377.25 years. By which time the state would have paid in 195 million 249 thousand 54 dollars. So they'd better hope they win one of the larger jackpots, or they won't even break even.
Looks like they'd probably end up with more money in the fund in the long run if they just put the $2 directly into it rather than buying lottery tickets with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
February 23, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to slb
Actually, buying two tickets a month doesn't change the odds in any way whatsoever. Buy one, buy two, buy 72 — the odds are still one in 195,249,054.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redwood Rhiadra
February 23, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to tiowally
The odds are one in 195 million *for each ticket*. The more tickets you buy, the more likely it is that the draw will match *one* of the tickets.
Say the odds were one in 10 (i.e. there are 10 numbers in the draw). You buy tickets for "6" and "2". Each ticket has only one in 10 odds, but the set of *both* tickets has one in 5 odds (i.e. 2 choices out of the 10 possibilities are winners).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
February 23, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to Redwood Rhiadra
Not entirely. If the numbers being picked are random on both sets (ie: the numbers selected on the tickets are random, just like the numbers selected at the drawing), your odds of winning on 2 tickets aren't doubled off of 1 ticket - there's the chance you'll get identical numbers, after all. In your example, it ends up as something like 1.9 in 10, not 2 in 10.
What's worse is, as you increase the number of variables (the number of numbers that have to be matched for the full payout), you're actually drawing down those odds still - one set of numbers not matching does not mean none of those numbers matched, nor does it mean those numbers won't appear on the other ticket as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 24, 2010 6:21 PM in reply to tiowally
Actually, buying two tickets a month doesn't change the odds in any way whatsoever. Buy one, buy two, buy 72 — the odds are still one in 195,249,054.
Wrong. If what you were saying were true, then buying enough tickets to give you all possible number combinations would still only give you a 1 in 195 million+ chance of winning, which is nonsensical.
Now: what you are saying is true regarding the payout. Buying more tickets doesn't increase the payout ratio, that is, the average dollar return for each dollar spent on lottery tickets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?