When slot-machine gambling was given the green light by the Pennsylvania General Assembly last year, many state residents assumed that eventually the commonwealth also would get the OK to delve into the realm of casino table games.

But those who predicted such a result might not have imagined that table games would be added to the legislative agenda before slots parlors were up and running and officials had the time to iron out gambling "growing pains" that might present themselves.

Unfortunately, they were wrong.

Although no slots-parlor licenses have yet been issued, two Western Pennsylvania Democratic lawmakers - H. William DeWeese of Greene County and Michael R. Veon of Beaver County - are already planning to sponsor legislation that would permit table games at the proposed 14 slots facilities.

It's commendable that Gov. Ed Rendell, who was a chief proponent of expanded gambling, is not taking a similar table-games stance. He told the annual government affairs conference of the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association Tuesday that he opposes the legalization of table games, at least for now.

"I think we have to stop there for the moment, for the foreseeable future," the governor said.

He said the state needs the opportunity to get the slots operations running smoothly before moving to expand something that doesn't even yet exist.

The Democratic governor's opinion is shared by Republican House speaker John Perzel, himself a gambling proponent, who, like Rendell, believes that expanding upon slot-machine gambling before any of the parlors are operating should be discouraged.

Veon and DeWeese think otherwise.

In a statement, the two lawmakers said, "We started with slot machines and now we should complete the job because there is no practical difference between putting $10 in a slot machine and putting $10 on a blackjack or poker table."

From such a vantage point, they're correct. However, approval of the table gambling would send the troubling signal to state residents that they were misled by the legislature last year. Of course, state residents have been misled before - most recently by the General Assembly's efforts regarding the City of Pittsburgh's financial crisis.

That crisis was the springboard for the legislature to change the name of the former Occupational Privilege Tax to the Emergency and Municipal Services Tax and allow the levy to increase to $47 annually from $5 in other municipalities, as well as in Pittsburgh.

The change was enacted without most taxpayers being aware that such an action was being contemplated.

In attempting to justify their current gambling position, Veon and DeWeese said table games revenue could be taxed and the money used to help reduce residential property taxes.

That was the same line that state residents were fed during the initial slot-machine debate, with the actual benefit to property owners destined to be much less than taxpayers were led to believe at the outset of initial slots discussion. The tax benefits to property owners from the table games would be anemic as well, because other interests would be granted a generous "piece of the pie."

DeWeese and Veon shouldn't compound the complicated task of those currently working on getting the slots parlors up and running. Their attention should be directed instead at finding ways to reduce the costs of state government, so meaningful tax benefits can be accorded to all taxpayers - property owners and non-property owners alike.