The golden goose

Nevada's casinos are accustomed to having bull's-eyes on their backs. If it wasn't expansions of tribal gaming or attempts to take college sports off the betting boards, it was local big-spenders seeking higher taxes on the resorts to fatten government budgets.

This great recession has given gaming executives all they can handle. Some 30,000 hospitality jobs have been cut in the past two years. Voters approved a big increase in the room tax to prop up the state budget even though occupancy rates were down, and lawmakers doubled the payroll tax. With national unemployment still rising, hotels are laboring to retain and attract convention business and lure tourists who'll stay more than a couple of days.

Now nearly a dozen state governments are looking to casinos to increase tax collections and prevent further budget cuts. Among the possible new destinations for this country's gamblers:

-- In Ohio, voters next month will decide an initiative that calls for putting Las Vegas-style casinos in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo.

-- Massachusetts lawmakers want to build a couple of big casinos to keep their residents from spending money in Connecticut's Indian resorts.

-- Illinois bars and taverns are now allowed to install up to three video poker and blackjack machines, although some local governments are pursuing their own bans on slot-style gaming.

-- Pennsylvania's Legislature is considering adding table games to the state's slots-only casinos.

This growing, expedient interest in expanding American gaming is a mixed bag for Nevada. If millions more Midwestern and Eastern residents have convenient, increasingly local options to gamble, they're less likely to hop on a plane to Las Vegas. That affects the profitability of airlines and Strip hotels, the income of tens of thousands of tip earners and the state's room, gaming and sales tax collections.

However, these states present Nevada-based gaming companies with new opportunities. The chance to expand into new areas with limited competition can help them remain profitable even when their Nevada numbers are falling through the floor. And the expansion of gaming anywhere helps the slot machine industry, which employs about 14,000 people in Nevada, according to an Applied Analysis study.

But the gaming industry's interest in running casinos outside Nevada emboldens its in-state critics, who argue that if casino companies are tripping over one another to enter states with incredibly high gaming tax rates, then they can afford to pay higher taxes in Nevada.

Pennsylvania's slot machine revenues are taxed at 55 percent, Maryland's proposed slots would be taxed at 67 percent, and any new Ohio casinos would have a 33 percent tax on gaming revenue. Nevada has the nation's lowest gaming tax rate at 6.75 percent.

But it borders on derangement for anyone to suggest raising any tax given Nevada's bleak economic outlook. The local unemployment rate is at a record-high 13.9 percent; the state rate is expected to hit 14.8 percent next year. Only one sector of the economy is adding positions: government. To advocate additional punishment for the gaming industry is to invite further job losses and more suffering.

Gaming can't be counted on to return Nevada to its go-go days of unmatched growth, just as gaming can't be counted on to spare other big-spending states from budget cuts. Gaming, like every other industry, has economic vulnerabilities -- especially taxation. Now more than ever, it's no sure thing.

If anything, Nevada's gamers need tax relief to encourage new investment and new hiring here. The expansion of gaming outside Nevada will continue -- there's no stuffing this genie back in its bottle.