If I fail to plan, ...

... then I must plan to fail. Check out this article: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/07/04/slots04.ART_ART_07-04-09_A1_2BECHLR.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101.

The GOP is right here. If $455 million in projected revenues may be retracted when the voters go to the ballot in November on the casino issue, then that amount ought to be removed from the equation. Why? Because you can never count on the voters to go one way or the other.

The proposal kind of stinks. First, it puts the voters in the position of deciding whether to keep the $455 million or to put casinos in Toledo, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. Second, it requires the racetracks to take some risk -- the investment of $455 million is nothing to balk at. Mind, I don't think it is appropriate for the government to ask people to invest money in setting up slot machines, only to have them bear the risk of losing that investment when casinos are put in place. So, you can't just remove that provision.

There's no reason you cannot have it both ways, though. Here's an idea: why not raise income the sales tax up to 6%? The 0.5% increase would raise $600 million (because a full 1%, according to statistics, will raise $1.2 billion). At 5.5%, the per capita sales tax collection was $803 in 2006, so, if the numbers hold, each resident would pay an additional $73 per year (at 6.0%, it would be $876 per capita). That extra $600 million would cover the potential loss from the voters' decision, and bring in an extra $145 million as a cushion. And if voters wanted to have casinos, then you'd have that full $600 million.

$73 per year per person. That's under $6.25 per month. You'd need four times that amount to sponsor a child in a third-world country, but it would buy time for the voters to freely decide whether casinos in our major cities would be worth the risk.