What state did you select?
The state of choice is Illinois. The state has several gaming alternatives. People can spend them earnings in casinos, bingo, lottery tickets, boat racing, horseracing, and online gambling among others. The state generates a lot of revenue from gaming. This income assists the state and local governments. However, the state has earmarked a large share of gaming income for education. Some analysts claim that Illinois has “reached a saturation point” (Hynes, 2000). However, the gubernatorial is under pressure from state officials to increase the number of gaming activities.
When was the legislation to earmark gambling revenue enacted?
The state of Illinois enacted PA 91-40 in 1999, which has affected the gaming industry. The decision to allow for dockside riverboat gambling resulted in high rates of tax collections. There were also changes in horseracing taxes. This mainly affected the distribution and structure by lowering the amount of cash in the General Revenue Fund.
In the US, in 1999, eight states allocated their revenues for general funds from the 37 lottery states. However, 17 states had designated their lottery revenues for education. As a result, education has become the common sector in which most states spend their lottery revenues. Lottery or gambling revenues also have other uses in areas related to “parks and recreation, tax relief, economic development, Mariners Stadium in Washington and police and fireman pensions in Indiana” (Hynes, 2000). Some of these usages are specific while others are in general areas.
In Illinois, fluctuations in gambling revenues have affected two areas of the education fund. First, the effect is in the Common School Fund that mainly supports elementary and secondary education. Second, it affects the Education Assistance Fund, which provides support in elementary, secondary, and higher education levels. In the fiscal year of 2000, the revenues for education funds increased by 8.3 percent ($65 million). However, it is difficult to note the trend from a specific game because of variations.
Do you believe that “fungibility” is present in the case you selected?
The state of Illinois legalized gambling to ensure “honesty and integrity of an activity, and to raise revenue” (Hynes, 2000). The growth in the revenue from gambling has attracted the attention of lawmakers. Illinois State has three agencies, which focus on gambling. Specifically, there is the Department of Revenue, Lottery, and the Multi-state Big Game. The Department of Revenue has noted increments in gambling incomes. Consequently, there are efforts to generate more revenue from gambling than in the previous fiscal years. At the minimum level, the state may only need a license to allow gaming and then collect taxes from the gross of the gaming receipts. However, in some cases, state agencies have taken interests in gaming with high interests like casinos and horseracing. Authorities usually take part in auditing, or they may involve the state police. In lotteries, the state may control the entire affair.
Revenues from gambling have affected Illinois State. For instance, in the fiscal year 2000, the General Funds cash balance declined by $525 million in August, whereas spending increased considerably. This scenario has led to budget fungibility because of the combined manner of spending of revenues from all sources (Miller and Pierce, 1997). Charles Spindler points out that because education expenditures constitute “a large share of state spending, they attract attention from legislative and executive decision-makers, including state agencies, who seek funds for other government activities and programs” (Spindler, 1995). Consequently, the state increased its sources of revenues during the fiscal year 2000.
References
Hynes, D. (2000). Fiscal Focus. Springfield, Illinois: The Illinois Office of the Comptroller.
Miller, D., and Pierce, P. (1997). Lotteries for Education: Windfall or Hoax? State and Local Government Review, 29, 34-42.
Spindler, C. (1995). The Lottery and Education: Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? Public Budgeting & Finance, 15, 54–61.