Instead of taking anybody's word on anything, we should be reading the proposed constitutional amendment to make sure we understand it's implications.

Gambling is a terrible way to raise money when every other state is doing it. Does anyone care that the lotto authority has had to come up with new ways to get people to gamble more since the state is addicted to its revenue? Putting in slots will only add to that addiction. Putting in slots in neighborhoods is a guarantee that those neighborhoods will become commercial districts to service the slot patrons. Pawn shops and pay day loan stores will spring up, making it easier for people to drive themselves into debt. It is insincere to defend the slots proposal by saying there are safeguards to put money into gambling addiction and gambling education when the pro-slots people know full well that won't do much to deter people. If that were the case, then smoking and HIV should have been cured already.

Teaching the American Government HSA class requires us to introduce the students to a cursory understanding of opportunity cost as it relates to economics. It is a tested concept and was recently included multiples times on their first benchmark.

So...I used the slots referendum as a way of helping them understand opportunity cost. As was said in the post, it is NOT the best alternative to acquiring school funding. It has enormous social and economic downsides, but it also presents the "potential" to include/increase funding in the light of economic squeezes and budget shortfalls.

So...the opportunity cost of securing unlimited funds for schools is the slots referendum. It is not the first choice, but presents the next best potential opportunity to acquire desperately needed funds for our crumbling schools. We'll see if they get it....

As for me, I will, with extreme trepidation, vote for the slots. The potential to get money for schools is a whole lot better than the reality of no money for schools. The social and economic costs that are presented with slots will have to be judged through a more comprehensive longitudinal study.

Guess that can help the students understand cost/benefit analysis.

Meisner completely misses the point: The teachers association supported the referendum not because we think slots is the ideal alternative or a cure-all, but because we know there is no other alternative currently on the table that will bring in the kind of revenue our students and schools need to continue their progress (and if you don't believe me about the progress, look at the recent MSA, HSA and AP scores around the state).

Of course, people have legitimate concerns about the side effects, but isn't our greatest moral responsibility making sure children have what they need to be successful?

Slots will not solve all of our refendum problems or ensure schools have everything they need, but if the referendum fails, there will undoubtedly be draconian cuts to education and other vital priorites. Voting FOR Question 2 is the only alternative we have right now.

Before making your decision about how to vote on slots, please be aware that in the past, when funds were "dedicated" to something, total funding never increased, the source of the funding just changed. And also look closely at the incredibly "rosy" picture they are putting out about expected revenues. And finally, please be aware that while crying poor-mouth, the governor just gave his staff extremely generous raises. I'm far from convinced that our government is making good use of the money we give them now. The last thing I want to do is give them more.