And if these arguments were not strong enough, many proponents argue that, at worst, the lottery is a mere voluntary tax. No one is, after all, forced to play. Surely such a free choice is better than a compulsory tax, supporters argue. Conveniently enough, the reasons used to support the lottery are the very same arguments one can use to argue more strongly against it. Although there is mounting evidence among states that have instituted lotteries that the actual financial return to the state is far less than initially predicted, and while there are other indications that the lottery disproportionately preys on the less well off, we believe a more central and more insidious problem is that the lottery allows government services to operate and even to grow without the recurring approval or direct support from the people.
Lotteries also hide from citizens the true cost of government.
Politicians and public administrators try to spread the burden of their livelihoods not only as widely as possible, but also, as in the case of the lottery, as imperceptibly as possible. Adding a voluntary tax like the lottery, whose proceeds typically help fund public schools, only spreads the cost of government more widely and more indirectly. It is hard to imagine a better method to secure funding while minimizing the risk of being directly accountable for how the money is spent than a state lottery. Proponents might argue that a referendum on the lottery is tantamount to a vote on funding education programs, since many taxpayers know that some lottery proceeds in other states are directed toward education. The lottery, therefore, meets every politician's and administrator's test for safe funding.