Money from the soon-to-be-implemented Pennsylvania slot machine gambling should not be used to bolster the fiscal health of the state lottery. Those two forms of gambling should live or die on the basis of their individual ability to attract players.

A proposal that evolved in the final hours state lawmakers were in session - that some slots gambling profits should be used to help the lottery, if its proceeds decline due to slots competition - merits the scorn of all commonwealth property owners.

No doubt, state taxpayers also would be interested in learning who dreamed up the preposterous proposal - as well as what lawmakers were inclined to approve it.

When slot machine gambling initially was being considered for this state, proponents, especially Gov. Ed Rendell, painted a rosy picture under which huge property-tax relief would be guaranteed and the state's fiscal problems would be greatly reduced.

However, a big chunk of the projected profits has been earmarked for non-property tax uses, and taxpayers probably are lucky if they see a 20 percent lowering of their real-estate-tax obligation.

What has been suggested regarding the state lottery would further erode the property tax benefit - and, of course, any property tax benefit is contingent on whether slots gambling actually produces the profits that optimistic projections have indicated.

Rendell's announcement that he would veto a package of changes to the 4-month-old slot machine gambling law, after the package gained legislative approval Saturday, means that the plan involving the lottery would die. However, there can be no guarantee that the "death" would be permanent; the General Assembly most certainly will revive slots-law debate once the new session begins in January.

The proposal to help the lottery must not be part of that discussion. State residents should send an emphatic message to that effect to their respective representatives and senators.

Over the years, the lottery has seen sales decline partly because of the lack of imagination regarding some games, especially instant tickets. Many people who had enjoyed plunking down a couple of dollars in hopes of winning a prize became frustrated over so many $1 "prizes" for $1 games, $2 "prizes" for $2 games, as well as other meager incentives to play.

Other players have become turned off to the two-a-day Daily Number and Big 4 drawings - an example of the lottery's expanding greed.

The senior citizen benefits that the lottery funds are a good use for lottery profits, but the lottery should be generating its own profits through players' interest, not via a slot machine pipeline not originally intended.

Rendell says he opposes that idea. It is to be hoped that his opposition remains intact.

- J.R.K.