Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

31

Reason #10 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3 (or, it’s a Charlie Brown Halloween, Ohio!)

Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments

Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment.

You can catch up on the bla bla bla here. The gist being, the proposed amendment language stinks, is inoperable, overbroad in some places, impossibly narrow in others and on and on and on. Well, at least 57 reasons worth of on and on.

This reason gives you the guts of the bribe to the rest of Ohio. The last paragraph was the bribe to people who say that Issue 3 is about education and is the best we can do.

Do not be fooled.

But do consider yourself warned: these guts are very messy.

Here is the seventh paragraph of the proposed amendment language:

In addition to the forgoing amount, an additional one percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the state to pay for gambling addiction services; an additional six-tenths of one percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the municipality or township in which each facility is located; an additional three percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be divided equally and paid to the county in which each facility is located and the county seat of that county, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development projects; an additional eight-tenths of one percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the county in which the non-track facilities are located, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development projects; an additional eight-tenths of one percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the city in which the non-track facilities are located, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development projects; an additional four tenths of one-percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be divided equally and paid to a county that has a population of at least seven hundred and fifty thousand persons and not more than one permitted commercial horse racing track, and the county seat of such county, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development projects; and an additional two and fourtenths percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the state for distribution to all other counties pursuant to the local government revenue assistance fund, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development or capital improvement projects. In addition to the foregoing amounts, an additional six percent of gross slot machine revenue at facilities located at each permitted commercial horse racing track shall be used by those tracks for purse money. In the event that devices are transferred between facilities located at permitted commercial horse racing tracks as provided in this section, the transferee facility shall distribute equally the amount of funds this section provides for purse money between the transferor and transferee tracks. An additional six percent of gross slot machine revenue at non-track facilities shall be deposited into the Ohio simulcast horse racing purse fund for distribution as provided by law. The proceeds of any additional games, if authorized by voters pursuant to this section, shall be distributed in the same manner as the proceeds from the operation of slot machines. No other fees or taxes may be applied to or levied against gross slot machine revenue or the amounts wagered or the proceeds of the other games authorized by this section.

Complete and utter blech.

Let’s break it down, without editorializing, but rather, putting it into bullet points so you can see exactly what it tries to provide:

1%: an additional one percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the state to pay for gambling addiction services;

0.6%: an additional six-tenths of one percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the municipality or township in which each facility is located;

3%: an additional three percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be divided equally and paid to the county in which each facility is located and the county seat of that county, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development projects;

0.8% an additional eight-tenths of one percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the county in which the non-track facilities are located, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development projects;

0.8% an additional eight-tenths of one percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the city in which the non-track facilities are located, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development projects;

0.4% an additional four tenths of one-percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be divided equally and paid to a county that has a population of at least seven hundred and fifty thousand persons and not more than one permitted commercial horse racing track, and the county seat of such county, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development projects; and

2.4% an additional two and fourtenths percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the state for distribution to all other counties pursuant to the local government revenue assistance fund, which proceeds shall be expended for economic development or capital improvement projects.

6% In addition to the foregoing amounts, an additional six percent of gross slot machine revenue at facilities located at each permitted commercial horse racing track shall be used by those tracks for purse money. In the event that devices are transferred between facilities located at permitted commercial horse racing tracks as provided in this section, the transferee facility shall distribute equally the amount of funds this section provides for purse money between the transferor and transferee tracks.

6% An additional six percent of gross slot machine revenue at non-track facilities shall be deposited into the Ohio simulcast horse racing purse fund for distribution as provided by law.

Let’s total that up:

1.0 (paid to the state for gambling addiction services)

.6 (paid to muni or township that’s home to a permitted facility)

3.0 (divided equally, paid to county that’s home to permitted facility & its county seat; must be used for economic development)

.8 (paid to county in which non-track facility exists; must be used for econ dev)

.8 (paid to the city in which the non-track facilities exist, must be used for econ dev)

.4 (divided equally, paid to county and its county seat of a county with at least 750K persons and not more than one permitted race track, must be used for econ dev)

2.4 (paid to the state, distributed to all the other counties “pursuant to the local government revenue assistance fund,” must be used for econ dev OR capital improvement projects)

6.0 (this amount of gross slot machine revenue gathered at race tracks must be used by the tracks for purse money; when machines transferred, transferee will split equally between transferee and transferor tracks)

6.0 (this amount of gross slot machine revenue gathered at non-track facilities must be deposited into the Ohio simulcast horse racing purse fund for distribution provided by law)

TOTAL: 21%

Add that to the 30% for grants, and that’s 51%, with 49% remaining to be given to the owners of the slots I assume. (The 55% number often seen as going to the corporate backers is because 6% goes to the track owners for purse money, and 6% goes to the non-track facility owners for Ohio Simulcast purses.)

The last two sentences of this portion read as follows:

The proceeds of any additional games, if authorized by voters pursuant to this section, shall be distributed in the same manner as the proceeds from the operation of slot machines. No other fees or taxes may be applied to or levied against gross slot machine revenue or the amounts wagered or the proceeds of the other games authorized by this section.

The bolded sentence is where the Ohio Constitution provides for the purse money and the 45% that goes to the corporate facility owners to never be taxed and to never be required to pay any other fees. Ever. Never. As in, at no time. Ever.

That is one damn amazing yield from a constitutional amendment. I haven’t been in law school since 1992, but who knew that you could write a contract right into the state’s constitution?

Proponents will moan about how much it will cost for the companies to run their facilities. You don’t actually want me to be concerned about that, do you? So their profit margin will be what? I gotta tell you, I’m so not worried about that.

Here’s a comparison of what OLE says the money will look like versus the Ohio OMB, including applying these percentages:

By the way, which seven race tracks are we talking about? Because I don’t even know racetracks except for Northfield Park and Thistledown - and isn’t one of those not horses?

This site lists eight race tracks in Ohio - which one isn’t included in Issue 3?

Ohio Horse Racing Tracks
Beulah Park - Grove City, OH, USA
Lebanon Raceway - Lebanon, OH, USA
Northfield Park - Northfield, OH, USA
Raceway Park, Toledo, Ohio, USA
River Downs - Cincinnati, OH, USA
Scioto Downs - Columbus, OH, USA
Thistledown - Cleveland, OH, USA
Toledo Raceway Park - Toledo, Ohio, USA

But I digress.

The quick hits from this reason to vote no on Issue 3 are:

1 - the cumbersome nature of this calculus increase the likelihood that no one will get what they think they’ve been promised (duh, since it was said just to get their vote);

2 - only very specific locales will receive scraps, with the remaining 80 some-odd Ohio counties getting even less;

3 - the fact that these provisions are in the constitution makes it extremely difficult to re-tool, should patterns of expenses, as well as revenue, deviate from projections; and

4 - gross slot machine revenue should be taxed, period; the constitution seems to indicate that the money going to the tuition grants will be tax-free, to the state and treats that money as though it were a tax already on the facility owners; but then the 55% going to the facility owners will not be taxed and no fees will be assessed, after the payoffs, I mean, payouts to the governmental units, as prescribed in the constitution, are given.

Doesn’t sound like any business arrangement I’ve ever heard of before.

Last but not least by a long shot, read this comment by Ed Morrison on a Brewed Fresh Daily thread, titled, Forest City to pay $50M plus 43% annually to PA.

Sounds to me like we’re getting nothing but rocks if Issue 3 passes.

Previous reasons why Issue 3 is scary, er, um, you should vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn):

Reason 11
Reason 12
Reason 13
Reason 14
Reason 15
Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57

Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).

Sphere: Related Content

By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:44 pm October 31st, 2006 in Politics | 2 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

31

Cuyahoga County Auditor Frank Russo drinks money-green Koolaid

Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments

Just got his robocall about Issue 3 and its $850 million dollars:

“For every kid…not just the top students…every student.”

Sheesh. How many times to we have to reprint this damn thing that shows the flagrant falsehoods in his assertions:

“For the purpose of inspiring students to aspire to college at an early age, to improve students’ academic preparation, and to make college affordable for students and their families, the Ohio Board of Regents shall award undergraduate higher education scholarships and tuition grants for United States citizens who are residents of this state commencing with the first high school class graduating two years following the approval of this amendment.

Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents. Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:

(A) Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students who, prior to enrolling in college, take core and advanced academic courses, participate in college readiness programs, assessment, and testing at any accredited public or non-public high school in this state, and contribute to public life through voluntary civic activity, and who attend any public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state.

(B) For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state. Such tuition grants shall be based solely on academic merit.

Also - are they allowed to use the robocall or my tax dollars to promote their positions?

Learning how sausage is made is so depressing.

Sphere: Related Content

By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:23 pm October 31st, 2006 in Politics | 4 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

31

Why The Bush is The Irrelevant

Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments

Okay. I’ve determined that this piece by David Berkowitz on MediaPost’s SearchInsider is a joke that is not a joke. I am just so sad that there are still 24 months left to his presidency.

An excerpt, for your lunchtime amusement:

The President is a busy man, and he doesn’t have time to go online. There’s little he needs to search for, since he has a gaggle of advisors always bringing him information. Yet, on occasion, even the world’s most powerful man turns to search, and it points to a future where search engines are used by every person alive. Google isn’t just for the masses; it’s also for the world’s most powerful.

Bush: “One of the things I’ve used on the Google is to pull up maps.”

The President understands just how powerful the top search engine is. It isn’t just Google –it’s THE Google. One can even infer that the President predicts Google will maintain its dominance of the search landscape for the foreseeable future. Is it any wonder that last Monday, the day of the CNBC interview, Google’s stock topped $480, its highest total to date? The Google could not find a better spokesman than the President.

President Bush is also an avid map user. This points to a very bright future for local search.

Bush: “I forgot the name of the program, but you get the satellite and you can–like, I kind of like to look at the ranch on Google, reminds me of where I want to be sometimes.”

Does he have any idea how many of the rest of us would like him to be there indefinitely?

Sphere: Related Content

By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:00 pm October 31st, 2006 in Politics | 2 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

31

Reason #11 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3

Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments

Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment, Part VII.

Read the reasons, based on the proposed constitutional amendment language, to vote no:

Part I here (Reason 18),
Part II here (Reason 16),
Part III here (Reason 15),
Part IV here (Reason 14),
Part V here (Reason 13) and
Part VI here (Reason 12).

The language to be parsed by this reason reads:

Thirty percent of gross slot machine revenue shall be paid to the state and shall be used, without necessity of appropriation by the General Assembly, notwithstanding section 22 of Article II of the Ohio Constitution, solely for the scholarships and grants provided for in this section and the related administrative costs for administering such scholarships and grants.

I’m just going to go right at it:

1. 30% of “gross slot machine revenue”

The definition for “gross slot machine revenue” is in the last paragraph of the entire proposed amendment. I’m posting it here for reference only because the focus of this reason to vote no is on the inadequacy of the language in the blue highlighted paragraph above. I’ll focus on the inadequacy of the definition below in a later reason.

For purposes of this section, “gross slot machine revenue” means the total of wagers received by a slot machine minus the total of: (1) cash or cash equivalents paid out to patrons as a result of playing a slot machine which are paid to patrons either manually or paid out by the slot machine; (2) cash paid to purchase annuities to fund prizes payable to patrons over a period of time as a result of playing a slot machine; and (3) any personal property distributed to a patron as the result of playing a slot machine, excluding travel expenses, food, refreshments, lodging, or services.”

NB: The lottery amendment granted the net proceeds to elementary, secondary, vocational and special education.

2. “Shall be paid”

This means that payment and use of the gross revenue, as that payment and use is described in this section, is mandatory; it would be a constitutional obligation for the slot revenue to be handed over…

3. “To the state”

Hmm. Handed over to “the state.” Well, this phrase is problematic because “the state” is too vague.

-To which entity within the state? The treasury? The Gaming Integrity Commission that doesn’t yet exist? The Lottery Commission that steps in if the Commission fails to form and the General Assembly doesn’t provide otherwise?

-Where’s the money sit while it’s waiting to be awarded to students by the Regents?

-Can it be invested while it’s sitting, waiting to be used?

-Is it considered part of the state budget (even if the GA doesn’t need to appropriate it)? What line item will it be? If it isn’t part of the state budget, then where does it go?

-Does leaving the destination allow the possibility that the GA can place it into vouchers, so that the money goes directly from the slots to the state and then to parents? or students?

-Can the money ever be refunded back to the slots owners if the money isn’t used?

Finally, this failure to identify where, within the state, the money goes, is in sharp contrast to the language used in the lottery amendment passed in the 1970s:

The General Assembly may authorize an agency of the state to conduct lotteries, to sell rights to participate therein, and to award prizes by chance to participants, provided that the entire net proceeds of any such lottery are paid into a fund of the state treasury that shall consist solely of such proceeds and shall be used solely for the support of elementary, secondary, vocational, and special education programs as determined in appropriations made by the General Assembly.

See the difference? And the problem?

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy - in its drafting and, if intended to be a loophole, in voters not being outraged that such sloppiness has any chance of getting into our state’s constitution.

Does anyone else like the word “besmirched“? Because that what I think of when I think of this proposed language getting into the Ohio constitution.

4. “And shall be used, without necessity of appropriation by the General Assembly,…”

a. Why doesn’t the language just say, “The General Assembly shall not x, y or z” this revenue? As in, “The General Assembly is hereby prohibited from…” whatever it is we want to prohibit the GA from doing (I believe this is the part where the writers were trying to give the appearance that, unlike the way in which the Lottery proceeds end up replacing education appropriations, the slots proceeds are supposed to be in addition to all other higher ed appropriations).

b. “Without necessity” So does this mean that the GA can appropriate it if it wants to, it just doesn’t need to? I’m sure that there is better language out there.

c. The General Assembly, as we’ll see later, is charged with making rules to implement this proposed amendment. What might they do, in their implementing statutes, to get around this?

For comparison’s sake, let’s look at what the Ohio Constitution says about lottery revenue, the General Assembly and appropriations:

The General Assembly may authorize an agency of the state to conduct lotteries, to sell rights to participate therein, and to award prizes by chance to participants, provided that the entire net proceeds of any such lottery are paid into a fund of the state treasury that shall consist solely of such proceeds and shall be used solely for the support of elementary, secondary, vocational, and special education programs as determined in appropriations made by the General Assembly.

Hmm. Okay. So, in the slots proposal, a few things are different:

1. As noted earlier in this post, the lottery’s entire net proceeds, get paid into a fund of the state treasury, and such fund will have only those net proceeds in it, and those funds shall be used only for the ed programs described, as determined in appropriations made by the GA.

Okay. So that’s where the complaints come in: the GA substitutes the net lottery proceeds for other dollars it might appropriate to such education programs. And the slots backers want to keep the GA from doing that with the slots gross revenue.

The problems remaining include:

1. When? When is the gross revenue to be handed over? Annually? Which year - calendar or each facility’s fiscal year?

2. Via what mechanism? Are there forms drafted which will be required to be used by the facilities to demonstrate that they’ve followed the formula prescribed in the definition? Will those forms be public, since the proceeds are being paid “to the state”? I assume the net proceeds determinations for the lottery are public.

3. And, as stated above, this slots provision says “paid to the state” but it doesn’t describe a dedicated fund in the state treasury, or anywhere else. So, again, I ask, where? Where will the gross slots revenue reside?

5. “Notwithstanding Section 22 of Article II of the Constitution…”

That section of the constitution reads as follows:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, except in pursuance of a specific appropriation, made by law; and no appropriation shall be made for a longer period than two years.

Here is a pretty decent definition of “notwithstanding.” For the purposes of the proposed language, it means, “in spite of” section 22.

So - in spite of the language in the Ohio constitution that says that no money can be used from the state treasury unless the GA appropriates it, and that the GA can only appropriate for two years at a time, this proposed section re: slots revenue would allow the gross slots revenue to stay out of the control of the GA indefinitely.

The problem is, the amendment portions that authorize tuition grants fail to provide for high school graduating classes after the first 12. There is absolutely nothing in this proposed language that indicates what is to happen after the first 12 years of classes go through the 5% winnowing process.

So - you’ve got proceeds coming in, in perpetuity, without General Assembly involvement, but you’ve only got the proceeds being awarded and going out for 12 years.

THEN WHAT?

[Btw, when they calculated how much money would have to go out each and every one of those 12 years to the top 5% who are eligible assuming all of the top 5% actually meet all the criteria, did they figure the dollar amount based on concurrent needs - that is, the first year, you have the 2009 grads, then you have 2009 and 2010, then you have 2009, 2010, 2011, then you have 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, then you have ??? whom exactly? Do the 09 kids only get it for…how long? Do the OLE numbers take any of this into account? Just asking. Because a good legal writer, and lawyer, would have thought about all this. And a transparent, forthcoming, straight up proponent, would tell you: it ain’t in there.]

Does the Gaming Integrity Commission step in? Does the GA step in, even though the amendment language implies that it won’t? Remember - the GA isn’t explicitly prohibited, it just says that nothing necessitates its involvement.

This issue is a huge gap in thinking it through. If you were having your wills and trusts and estatdivviedied up by a lawyer, and this happened? He or she would be liable for malpractice. Or, at a minimum, there’d be some mighty unhappy survivors, with everyone trying to determine your intent.

6. (shall be used…) “solely for the scholarships and grants provided for in this section…”

There you go again, OLE.

#1 - No scholarships have been described. Only tuition grants. And this language doesn’t even mention “tuition” grants. Call me picky (Picky!) but this again shows sloppiness. It also provides more evidence that different people wrote different sections and didn’t give a kids’ college education about making it something that will actually function, as desired or otherwise.

#2 - This is why you use shortcuts in rules and statutes. When the first instance of “scholarships and tuition grants” came in the text, someone should have added the words, hereinafter referred to as “grants” or some such language, so that everyone knows that we’re always talking about the same thing, every time, and not anything else. Is it redundant? Some might say yes. But I say, it’s about clarity.

Which is not something that anyone seems to have wanted to accomplish in regard to setting up higher education funding via this proposed language.

Stay with me - this is the last line:

7. (shall be used…soley for…) “and the related administrative costs for administering such scholarships and grants.”

Okay - that picky thing? If you’re using “soley” for two things, that’s not really “solely” now is it? Because solely tends to imply one. Whatever. (Because, you know, like, if something is exclusive, but then you say it’s exclusively for him, her and someone else? Well, then, you know? It’s not EXCLUSIVE to anyone? Okay - yeah - whatever. Crappy, crappy, crappy, crappy writing.)

Problem #1 with this last line of this sole paragraph:
“Administrative costs” needs a definition. Desperately.

Why? Because under no circumstances do we want there to be such a nexus that Forest City or the state or anyone other than the REGENTS get the administrative costs. Seriously. How many entities along the way will in fact incur costs in the attempts to administer the gross proceeds? Think about that. How many entities are going to touch that money as it tries to get to students (which really is, as it tries to get to the colleges, which really is, back to the state coffers, in some cases anyway)? And how many will claim that that touching equals administrative costs for which they should be reimbursed from the gross proceeds?

There is no cap on how much of the gross proceeds that are earmarked for education can go to administrative costs.

You know how you have to be careful about the charities to which you donate because some have ridiculous ratios of money received to money spent on overhead, and therefore less goes to the cause itself?

That could easily happen here - we could see enrichment of the administering entities, whomever they are in addition to the Regents. The proposed amendment language provides absolutely no direction whatsoever on these points.

Problem #2

Has anyone determined, publicly or privately, what the administrative costs will be and who will incur them?

How they will increase depending on numerous factors: slots revenvacillatinging, number of students to get awarvacillatinging annually, maybe even quarter by college quarter (what if kids are flunking, by the way - do the still get the money? has anyone noticed that there are no provisions or guidelines for how to unfund these kids? sure, say that that’s up to the Regents, but given all that this proposed language spews out, you’d think that they’d cover that too, even in a minimal way to ensure that no one gets what they don’t deserve)?

Several politicians who are trying to tackle elementary and secondary school funding frequently talk about wanting to know what it costs to fund such education in the state of Ohio. You’d think it would be rigeuruer for people promoting something like Issue 3 to be able to say, this is what it will cost and this is what we’ll collect.

Anyone from OLE care to tell us: how much will the administrative costs be, on an annual basis, for the 12 years prescribed by this proposed language? What percentage of the gross proceeds that are intended for the grants will that be? And which entities will be entitled to get reimbursed?

Let’s put it this way:

How much of the gross slot machine revenue won’t be going to the students?

Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:

Reason 12
Reason 13
Reason 14
Reason 15
Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50