Ohio “Learn and Earn” Initiative Is Playing from Way Behind with Me
My initial reaction to “Ohio Learn and Earn” (OLE), the ballot proposal to fund scholarships to Ohio colleges with newly-legalized gambling money, was negative.
I believe that a statewide gambling initiative should get an up-or-down vote, by itself, on its own merits, without clutter. The issues of post-secondary education affordability, access, and financing should be separately addressed by the General Assembly.
My early negative viewpoint towards OLE has been reinforced by some heavy lifting by other Ohio bloggers:
The newly-blogrolled (in Other Localities) Cleveland Equanimous Philosopher (CEP) did a thorough analysis of the proposal, and found it very wanting, in fact identifying seven “Large Holes You Can Drive Trucks Through.” Go there.
OLE spokesperson Todd Hoffman’s attempt at clarification and rebuttal at CEP’s site, especially his comment’s verbal gymnastics, fell flat with me, as it did with CEP, who fisked it quite effectively.
Lincoln Logs has created a category at his blog for OLE and has done detailed Q&As with Hoffman the OLE spokesperson, and The American Policy Roundtable, which opposes the measure.
In the spirit of delegation and laziness (not necessarily in that order), I only have a few things to add to the excellent points made at the posts linked above (perhaps these could be added to CEP’s “Large Holes” list):
- I think there is potential for high schools to start gaming their curricula, either by dumbing down courses or reclassifying them, so that students will falsely appear to be taking core and advanced courses that will qualify them for the scholarships.
- The discrimination against parents who don’t send their kids to Ohio colleges, or whose kids don’t go to college, is blatant and unfair. At least with the state 529 plans, parents can use the monetary value of their child’s account to pay out-of-state tuition, or can transfer the money to another child, or even, eventually, a grandchild, if the child with the account doesn’t go to college. With OLE as proposed, the money in the “account” essentially disappears (and goes back to whom?), unless it can get passed on to a sibling or parent, which I doubt would be the case.
- Perhaps most important from a financial viewpoint — I have yet to see ironclad proof that each child’s OLE “account” will represent real money, in a real account, conditionally owned by the child, earning a reasonable return. I have plenty of reason to believe that such will NOT be the case. Anything short of what I just specified has the potential for hanky-panky or financial “surprises.” I would add that the “child” should be able to walk away with his or her money at age 25 if it isn’t used, and that if the child dies before reaching age 25, the child’s beneficiaries should get the money. In other words, once the real money hits the child’s real account, it’s not going back to anyone, but will instead be used in some way by the child or the child’s beneficiaries (typically, I suppose, for college education, but not necessarily).
Barring something unforeseen and extremely compelling that I might be missing about the proposal, I’m opposed to OLE.
[…] BizzyBlog.com » Ohio “Learn and Earn†Initiative Is Playing from Way Behind with Me […]
Pingback by Brewed Fresh Daily » Up-or-down, separately addressed — July 24, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
This is an old story. We have seen it before with the Ohio lottery. These folks are out for one thing “money”. They take it not give it away. I won’t argue whether they will give or they won’t. The point is, it is wrong. They take peoples hard earned money. We let the state do it and I can remember the assurances then.
And look at how it has been blown out of all proportion. It is not a lottery anymore.
Look at the gambling tickets that are sold “the scratch off’s”. If this continues we might as well just throw open the doors. Every tribe of Indian who ever walked through Ohio on their way someplace else now wants to build a casino here. I mean we have to start using our heads. It is not whether they will give money or not, it’s about whats right or wrong.
At one time we as a society we could tell the difference.
Just as pornography is wrong and we have let it become so prolific. Our kids see so much of it dripping of supermarket stands in the checkout lines. I wander if it has anything to do with the increase in sexual preditors. You get my drift. what is bad should never be given the room to grow in our garden. Weeds have a tendency to take over.
Comment by David Miller — September 15, 2006 @ 1:53 am
#2, I find it hard to disagree with the morality argument, to a point. I do think that if people want to gamble with very modest amounts of money they can legitimately afford to lose in very controlled situations, that it’s just another form of recreation (i.e., bingo). But you and I know that’s not where the casinos make their money.
Comment by TBlumer — September 15, 2006 @ 8:17 am
0472ee326de07e1ab1bd3e1a38be51c6 patrician3trucchi http://5.sicontempla.com/teatrolaboratoriocorso/ tettasimonaventura perditadipossesso http://3.erecavano.com/autolavaggioagettoni/ comunevaleggio suoneriacompatibilitelitg83 http://5.sicontempla.com/annunciolavorolecco/ camerasanminiato paginaattivecercavi http://16.sicontempla.com/mulettousatoemiliaromagna/ oliosiliconico corsoformazioneregionale http://20.difrequente.com/patriziapescatori/ preghieradiguarigione smsmmsgratis http://20.lelucciole.com/semidipapavero/ agevolazionivenditaauto incontroquinzanod http://1.lelucciole.com/chattareromaniagratis/ pigliohotel vacanzanatalecapodanno20032004 http://1.sicontempla.com/palestraegolucca/ anzianaporno f00267447565fc194a8c0671abd83bbe
Comment by Bradford — October 17, 2006 @ 11:07 pm