Missouri Senate to discuss privatizing state lottery

Comment #37

mayhem — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:07:53 GMT

Private companies are much more competitive and efficient with their time and money than a state run institution will ever be. Some people Missouri realize this. I see no reason to fear privatization.

Comment #36

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:45:01 GMT

And to keep everything on the up and up I think the link below would work very well for those

in charge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1yobLezkgU feature=related

RL

Comment #35

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:07:26 GMT

PS

Just don't outsource to foregin countries, I think enough of that has been done already.

RL

Comment #34

RL-RANDOMLOGIC — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:03:42 GMT

Todd

I think it's called outsourcing, anytime I can get something done for $20.00 that cost me $25.00 to do

myself I see as a good idea. Sometimes just releaving the headaches of day to day operations can

justify the change.

RL

Comment #33

mightwin — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 18:27:44 GMT

I don't think cutting out small retailers would save money, they make their $ from getting a small portion of each ticket sale plus if they don't sell a certain amount each week they get charged a fee for low sales (at least in michigan). Yeah its kinda confusing, the lottery says they will still be in charge but the private company would be running it. Wheres the savings actually coming from

Comment #32

RJOh — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:39:11 GMT

In Ohio,GTECH already provide the system (terminals, scratch off tickets and such) to play the games. The Ohio Classic Lotto (6/49), Rolling Cash5 (5/39), Pick3/4 and Keno have a standard format that all states use so it's unlikely those games could be made more profitable. MegaMillions and PowerBall aren't totally controlled by the states so there probably wouldn't be much change there either so the saving would probably be made by running the games with fewer people.

One way to have fewer p... [ More ]

Comment #31

mightwin — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:42:30 GMT

I wonder how much the states would actually save? If a private company takes over running the lottery, does that mean alot of the state workers, in positions, within the lottery be terminated? Would contracts with local printers of instant tickets be terminated as well?Or would the private company just be incharge of designing the games and advertising

Comment #30

Captain Lotto — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:07:41 GMT

A couple of things - governments are made up of people, just like corporations. There are certainly smart people in government, just as there are some idiots in the private industry. Don't be so quick to dismiss the experience of public employees just because they work for the government.

Secondly - there are a number of people in every state who don't favor the Lottery. Usually, it's because they make money from a segment of the population who may not be wise with how they spend their money... [ More ]

Comment #29

ameriken — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 03:07:27 GMT

Corporations can do amazing things with their own money, and do it far better than the government could ever do with taxpayer money. Government should be trying to do things at a profit, if they did we'd be in far less trouble now as a country. When government runs out of money, they just raise the shortfall through taxes. Businesses have to find a way to make it.

However I am not quite as trusting of corporations when it comes to public/taxpayer money as think there is a very high potential... [ More ]

Comment #28

jimmy4164 — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:15:40 GMT

An easier way to look at this is to just pull back, make a couple of observations, and then ask a simple question.

(1) Observe that, at the moment, Missouri is making a LOT of money running their lottery. Perhaps they could be making more, perhaps not.

(2) The corporation that ultimately wins the bid, through contractual agreements for future payments to Missouri, and a giant ante of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars up front, is currently making NOTHING from the lottery.

(Q) Simp... [ More ]

Comment #27

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 23:21:53 GMT

That's the idea, but instead of just being the company that supplies systems and tickets, they staff every position at the lottery -- the management, the marketing, the draw staff, etc. They decide how to run the whole operation (within whatever limits are within their contract). The state continues to have oversight, probably with some kind of lottery oversight panel in the legislature.

I'm sure they create more profit through efficiencies (cost savings) as well as additional marketing of so... [ More ]

Comment #26

RJOh — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 23:15:24 GMT

GTECH recently won a contract with Ohio. They provide the system (terminals, scratch off tickets and such) to play the games, it will be interesting to see what more they are doing for Illinois to raise that additional one and a half billion dollars.

Comment #25

joshuacloak — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 23:07:20 GMT

i want to Gtech and scientific games websites, o boy now i think i know what their planning

just look at websites and what gaming products they already offer, 1 even had betting games for smart phones, ooooo i can't wait to see what happens when they flat out gain control over a state lottery, sure they are already The instant scratch off game and lottery terms super powers, aka supplyers to mustly ever state

but boy do i see them going wild with full control over a state lottery, somethin... [ More ]

Comment #24

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:45:08 GMT

That's what I thought at first too, because the media always wrote about selling the lottery , but in fact they're not selling the lottery outright. In fact, it probably would be against the law to do so. They are selling a contract for running (operating) the lottery. The government puts the contract out for bid, and evaluates all the companies to see who does the best job while returning the best profit.

That's the process Illinois completed, and they awarded a ten-year contract to three co... [ More ]

Comment #23

RJOh — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:39:45 GMT

When a state privatizes a lottery, they are hiring an outside company to run the lottery, but the government (the people) still owns the lottery.

From the articles I've read about states privatizing their lotteries they are actually selling their lotteries to a private company in exchange for a large infusion of money now and the companies expect to recoup their investments with a profit on future lottery sales. Sounds likes they'll not only be running those lotteries but actually own them.... [ More ]

Comment #22

joshuacloak — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:36:31 GMT

am just thinking of ways they could bring in more money if the govt not running the show.....

1 way ofc is online website where you can buy into their games

more like maybe what some of them lottery ticket buying/holding for you companys do already like the one usamage links via marketplace on their side bar to the right

,alone let you buy a ticket online of say, A raffle ticket,

sense my tn state has not brothered to make a other raffle game recently, why not just buy a other s... [ More ]

Comment #21

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:56:56 GMT

@truecritic: Remember, they are only talking about privatizing the operation of the lottery. The lottery itself still belongs to the people (i.e., the government = the people).

When a state privatizes a lottery, they are hiring an outside company to run the lottery, but the government (the people) still owns the lottery. It's like a store owner hiring someone else to run the store, and trusting (but verifying) that they do a good job.

Comment #20

truecritic — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:53:19 GMT

that the government could somehow produce better returns to the state.

I think it is true.

Lottery privatization capitalizes on this, because the state gets a percentage of the profits, and I'm sure they have baked in the proper controls (like the company doesn't get any profit until a minium is met, etc.).

(I know, you aren't taking a position - but I have questions about your statements nonetheless). How can you have any set minimum? It's a moving target. You set a minimum of $1,0... [ More ]

Comment #19

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:27:31 GMT

You bring up some good points Captain Lotto.

Privatization may or may not be a good thing, I'm not sure. Last year I came out against it, but now I see good arguments for and against it.

One thing is for sure. When the founders used Federalism as the country's guiding principle, they were geniuses.

Why?

Because we have 50 little laboratories (called states ) that are each free to try experiments under the guidance of their citizens, and all the other states can observe and learn from... [ More ]

Comment #18

Captain Lotto — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:20:28 GMT

I'd like to point out that the reason Lotteries were outlawed years ago was due to corruption. When they returned, it was under the guidance of the states, who are accountable to the public.

As far as government examples - there are many. A lot of public services are managed by governments - water supplies and road administration come to mind, although certainly not all - for exactly the reason that it saves taxpayer money by removing the profit motive.

Governments provide services, and... [ More ]

Comment #17

joshuacloak — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:15:54 GMT

am against it for govt backed by force Monopoly ,

however todd is sadly right about the profits in reality

the issue with runned by the govt is its group think element, thats is Govt

group think , is the must retarded way of doing things when people in the group,are freaking idiots.

take nasa team of say mars rover enginers, Not the higher ups thro that sit on their beeps.......

or a dev team behind a game, They all have a job, and can do said job,

Govt, has a group of idi... [ More ]

Comment #16

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:43:29 GMT

As I mentioned before, I am not stating a preference for or against privatization. I was responding to the first comment in this thread that implied that private companies are somehow inherently underhanded and/or corrupt, and that the government could somehow produce better returns to the state.

I'm sure the private companies vying for the contract will prove to the state how they will produce good/better returns to the state. After all, that's what they did in Illinois to win the contract t... [ More ]

Comment #15

truecritic — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:33:04 GMT

Todd

Given: Without any cheating going on, either on the part of the Government or Private corporation.

Question: How can privatization increase the money going to the States? Unless the salaries and wages of the State employees are too high?

============================================================

I am not sure which I trust more with the lotteries, government or corporations. However, corporations have a desire to make a profit and often do it any way they can. Enron comes to... [ More ]

Comment #14

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:21:17 GMT

No, I don't feel you, because you're making up a reaction that did not take place. I have been the furthest thing from intense in my reaction. I am much more dogged and logical than intense.

Again, you are trying to shift the discussion away from the point in order to mask the weakness of your argument.

Comment #13

jimmy4164 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:16:11 GMT

I hear you! The intensity of your reaction to my opinion on privatizing the Missouri lottery causes me to suspect there are unspoken prior issues at work here. Do you feel me?

------------------------------------

No one wins. One side just loses more slowly. Prez

Comment #12

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:05:20 GMT

How strange. You started this discussion by posting your opinion.

This is a forum. It is where people come to debate and discuss, not where someone can stand on a soap box without allowing a differing opinon to be expressed. You can use your blog if that's all you're interested in doing.

It seems that when it appears your argument does not hold the same weight as those with the opposite opinion, instead of saying, Hey, you have a point, maybe I didn't think this through, you try to shift t... [ More ]

Comment #11

jimmy4164 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:58:01 GMT

I can see where this is going, and I'm not interested. I could start going round and round with you on these issues, but it would be fruitless. These kinds of issues always boil down to fundamental philosophical differences over what is the best way for societies to function. I happen to believe the major problems of our species today started with the discovery of agriculture. The documentary and book, Guns, Germs, and Steel might interest you. I won't challenge you if you believe you've won the... [ More ]

Comment #10

Littleoldlady — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:26:57 GMT

Most private companies are in for profits for themselves. When I see how some states want to privitize their lotteries, I think about how the banking industry was deregulated and how many people lost everything because of the lack of oversight. Banks floated phony paper, mortgage companies made loans to any and everbody and then the bubble burst and we are still not out of the woods by a long shot. I am not so trusting of these privitization ideals anymore.

Comment #9

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:59:29 GMT

Well you are contradicting your own argument in your first post. Your argument was that the government was turning a profit, and a private company would screw that up.

I hate to say it, but it sounds like you just plain like government and dislike business. Because you are unwilling to provide a shred of evidence for your initial complaints, and you contradicted yourself in an attempt to evade my pointed questions.

Unless you can provide something concrete I would have to conclude that it... [ More ]

Comment #8

jimmy4164 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:44:33 GMT

Business is not my area of expertise. Perhaps someone else here can provide some examples.

I won't be surprised though if there are not many examples of profitable government enterprises.

I believe it is the duty of government to provide services, not make a profit.

Comment #7

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:36:49 GMT

You did not quote an example of the government doing something better than the private sector. Returning a mere 50% in a gambling operation is nothing to crow about. I'm sure the casinos bring back a much healthier profit ratio than that.

If you'd like to cite an example of one single instance where the government is doing something better, more efficiently and/or more profitably than a private sector company, I would be interested to hear it. Otherwise, I don't think you can claim that priva... [ More ]

Comment #6

jimmy4164 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:33:56 GMT

With a 50% profit margin, it should be obvious that the many state run lotteries across the country are the best examples. In my opinion, there are many areas where the profit motive works for the good of all. However, I also believe there are some where profit increases the potential for greed to trump what is good for the majority. I put lotteries in this latter category.

In all these kinds of debates - healthcare, liquor lottery sales, the focus of privatization proponents is always on pot... [ More ]

Comment #5

sully16 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:26:43 GMT

I'm for it, I believe it will create more jobs ,bring in more money and eliminate more government.

Comment #4

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:20:29 GMT

Well, I guess philosophically we disagree, because I'm at a loss to point at one single example where the government does something better and more efficiently -- and more profittably -- than a private-sector company. Perhaps you could cite an example

Comment #3

jimmy4164 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:14:33 GMT

I get it. However, in practise, these moves seldom result in more revenue for the governments. What they do for sure is move some of the profits to the corporations and quite often to a few elected officials who support the move.

Corporations, by charter, are mandated to make a profit for their shareholders. Any methods a private lottery employs to increase lottery sales would be better implemented by the public entity currently in charge. If necessary, PR firms stand ready and willing to con... [ More ]

Comment #2

Todd — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:00:31 GMT

I think you misunderstand the purpose of privatization. It is to increase revenues to the state. I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, but if you don't like it because you believe the state will receive less money, then I don't think you are getting the concept.

Just like the current union debate in Wisconsin is to bring more income to the state, by eliminating the unfair union benefits, which were obtained through collective bargaining.

Comment #1

jimmy4164 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:55:48 GMT

A lottery has to be one of the most reliable and profitable revenue sources a state can have.

That Missouri is even considering handing it over to a private corporation is unbelievable!

Or is it? It fits right in with the union busting and privatization efforts of newly elected

legislatures across the country. If there are any concerns about the randomness of the

computerized draws in Missouri now, just wait until the likes of Kenneth Lay or Bernie

Madoff are in charge! I wonder h... [ More ]

Missouri Senate to discuss privatizing state lottery

Lottery Post — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:23:30 GMT

The Missouri Lottery will begin talks in April with the state Senate about moving control of the lottery from the government to the private sector.

Lottery Executive Director May Scheve said it was difficult to comment on the issue because the Missouri Lottery is currently ascertaining the opinion of state vendors on the matter; privatization was only recently brought up by the Senate's Rebooting Government initiative.

We really haven't engaged in conversation with the Senate, Scheve said... [ More ]