At 08:56 AM 4/28/03 -0400, Vicki Steinberg wrote:
>I cannot remain silent any longer.
>Sen. Fowler's statement was not racist per se. He appears to hold every
>person with an income under $36,000 in disdain by making the
>counter-argument to an amendment to the lottery bill which would have
>furnished an addition $1,000 to students from families which fell under
>this income threshold (some 88% of Tennesseans, btw). Sen. Fowler's reply
>was "what?? so that they can snort it or buy kegs of beer." That is not
>racist, it's classist.

I find it amusing that one of the arguments used most often in trying to
"kill" the lottery prior the the November vote was that "it will exploit
the poor because that is who will buy the tickets."  So if the poor are the
ones buying the tickets, shouldn't they benefit from the lottery proceeds?
Apparently Sen. Fowler doesn't think so.

I was hoping Tennessee would learn from other states that have been in the
lottery scholarship business for years (Georgia, for example).  Georgia
wisely implemented the HOPE scholarship 10 years ago with an income cap
(which was removed when the lottery proceeds far exceeded initial
forecasts). In Tennessee, the Senate bill eliminated the income cap of
$100,000. Why don't we see what we can afford before offering the
scholarships to families that could send their children to college without
lottery funds?






Jonathan Looney
Director - Student Financial Aid
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga