Powerball lottery jackpot: It's not a winning ticket for states

The Powerball lottery jackpot hit a record high, only revealing how much states are addicted to gambling revenues while ignoring the effects of gambling on the poor. 

AP Photo
Customers wait outside a liquor store in Hawthorne, Calif. Jan. 13 to buy Powerball lottery tickets.

In his final State of the Union address, President Obama warned of changes in society that can “widen income inequality.” Here is one change he probably did not consider: Last year, the rules for the Powerball lottery were altered – because of a slump in ticket sales – to increase the winning jackpot and thus lure more gamblers. It worked. By Jan. 13, the jackpot had hit a record high of $1.5 billion (yes, with a “b”). And based on past studies, guess which class of Americans probably dished out a disproportionate share of personal income to buy one or more of the $2 tickets?

America’s poor.

For the majority of states that run lotteries and participate in Powerball (or Mega Millions), the addiction to revenues from legal gambling has only grown – even as public interest in gambling fell during the past decade. These states know all too well that low-income people – acting in an irrational fantasy about winning sudden wealth – can spend as much as 5 percent of their income on lottery tickets each year.

Lotteries, in other words, amount to a regressive tax on the poor. They only widen inequality.

If state officials want to help the working class, as Mr. Obama called for, they need to stop promoting lottery sales. In addition, government should not be in the business of selling the idea that one advances in life by chance. During his presidency, Obama has put a strong emphasis on education and worker retraining – not a superstitious belief in luck – to help lift the poor. Government must assist individuals to tap their talents rather than push them toward the temptation of a momentary “thrill” of an illusion about winning the lottery.

For society at large, state lotteries are neither a low-risk investment nor innocent entertainment. The absurdity of offering a $1.5 billion jackpot should be a wake-up call for states to focus less on faith in chance and more on the enduring potential of their citizens.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.