It looks all set: Pennsylvania's got three cherries in a row.

We're getting slot machines that are expected to generate about $3 billion a year, and this money will be used to reduce property taxes in all but one of the state's 501 school districts.

Horseracing tracks will be among sites throughout the state that will have gambling machines -- making Pennsylvania second only to Nevada, with 61,000 machines at 14 locations. With this magnitude of a change in Pennsylvania, it doesn't seem like the bill should have been pushed through the Senate and the House at practically the last minute, right before the members' summer vacations.

Of course, this brings up the reason why it got through: Gov. Ed Rendell was banking that the bill would pass, and he based his budget for the state upon that result.

While some proponents of the bill say that this revenue can be counted on to come in because Pennsylvania residents already visit other states to gamble, legislators against the bill say that this revenue is anything but definite, and slot machines may bring more trouble than they are worth.

And don't we have to ask, why would the state want to secure its budget on slot machines?

Gambling is known to be a high-risk behavior with people becoming addicted and throwing away much of their life for the thrill of it.

Maybe some of the money raised should be sent to associations for gambling addicts. Even with the expected good side of the slot machines, we all know there are going to be these individual problems.

It seems all too likely that there will be an ugly downside, but this is only half of the problem. A bad situation could arise if there would be an onslaught of gambling in Pennsylvania, which is what the state is expecting. But the worst-case scenario is what if there isn't?

It's not necessarily wrong for the state to want to use slot machines as an additional source of income, or even to ease taxes for residents. But instead of looking at these funds as a kind of bonus, the government is relying on it.

And this is exactly the main question to be addressed: While giving the state slot machines is one thing, isn't it sort of unstable to be tying the budget to this proposal?

If the state is reliant upon this money, what if people do not gamble at the projected amount? What if the state doesn't get the $3 billion that it expects to defray tax costs?

It all sounds like a big crap shoot.