Isn't this just conflating states that do that with other states that don't?
Oregon keeps the general fund and the lottery fund separate, 53% of the lottery fund goes to education (the rest to other voter-approved programs).
Year 0: general fund hands 100m to schools.
Year 1: General fund hands 101m / year and lotteries add 10m to that yay! 111m for school, or except ‘inflation’ was 2% so it’s more like 109m.
Year 2: General fund hands 102m / year and lottery adds 10.2m, ‘inflation’ was 2%. So adjusting for inflation Schools get ~108 million and general fund only spends ~98m.
Repeat as needed until general fund is handing the equivalent of 90m with the slack taken up by the lottery.
> Repeat as needed until general fund is handing the equivalent of 90m with the slack taken up by the lottery.
The lottery picking up the slack so that 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.
> 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.
Bonus: cut education enough, and it even gets easier to do!