Proposition A is too confusing

Five measures -- two proposed constitutional amendments and three efforts to change state laws proposed by initiative petitions -- will be on the Nov. 4 ballot in Missouri. One of the initiative propositions that affects the state's casino gambling industry, Proposition A, should be considered carefully.

While there are parts of Proposition A that will appeal to many voters, overall the plan is too restrictive and imposes limits that would best be left to the deliberative process of state legislation.

In short, Proposition A would, if passed, affect several areas of casino gambling. The proposition would repeal the gambling loss limit, prohibit any future loss limits, require identification in gambling areas only if necessary to establish that a person is at least 21 years old, restrict the number of casinos to those already built or being built, increase the casino gambling tax to 21 percent from 20 percent, create a Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund for the tax proceeds generated by the gambling tax and require annual audits of the fund.

Proponents of Proposition A are focusing mainly on what they say will be additional funding for public schools if the measure passes -- a part of the proposal that will likely attract widespread support. But there are a lot of unknowns in the plan that are being touted as givens.

For example, Proposition A backers say increasing the casino tax to 21 percent -- 1 percentage point -- will generate more than $100 million of new funding for education. But that would occur only if Missouri's casinos experience a nearly $500 million increase in gambling proceeds. The supporters say that's a fair assumption that would result from eliminating the loss limits and limiting gambling to existing casinos.

That estimate, of course, was made before the national and worldwide economic turmoil of recent weeks. No one knows for sure how the economy will affect gambling profits. The mainstay of the pro-Proposition A argument has shaky legs right now.

Another part of Proposition A is distasteful to the spirit of free enterprise. The state has always regulated casinos, which must obtain a license before they can open. This regulation is, at least partly, intended to ensure that casinos are well-run and profitable. Most of Missouri's casinos have done well, but not all, even with regulatory oversight.

The claim that limiting the number of casinos would further guarantee the profitability of casinos is thin, and the notion that it would take either legislative action or another initiative petition to overturn the cap on casino isn't fair to entrepreneurs who are willing to risk millions of dollars to develop new casinos.

Clearly, Cape Girardeau has a parochial interest in the proposed lid on casinos. Nearly 15 years ago, voters here approved having a casino here, but plans for riverboat never worked out. Now two local businessmen, David Knight and Jim Riley, have a plan to develop a large area along the river north of downtown that would include a casino, hotel and other amenities. Their plans are stymied because of the proposed cap on casinos, resulting in a lawsuit that has yet to be resolved.

Some people oppose gambling. Period. Others would rather generate school funding through casino taxes rather than paying higher taxes themselves. Still others would like to see parts of Proposition A approved, but not all of it.

All of these issues could be -- and, in some cases, have been -- addressed by the Missouri Legislature. Elected representatives and senators from across the state have refused, over the years, to eliminate the limit on gambling losses. Now the will of legislators could be thwarted by a proposition that touts more funding for education with no guarantee that there will be any additional dollars.

Missourians can make up their own minds about Proposition A. Many of them will be put off by all the unknowns in the measure.