What's the Difference on the Gambling Proposals?

Based on analysis by Herald-Tribune writer Jeremy Wallace, here's what you've got, not including the unimportant details of what specific gambling would be allowed:

*Rep. Bill Galvano's plan would generate $100 million a year, keep the gambling age at 21, would allow unlimited random state inspections of the casinos and would allow people injured at the casinos to sue the tribe.

*Gov. Charlie Crist's plan would generate $150 million a year, keep the gambling age at 21, would limit state inspections to four per year and would allow lawsuits against the tribes only after "other remedies are exhausted."

*The Senate plan would generate $400 million a year, would change the gambling age to 18, would allow unlimited state inspections of the casinos and would allow lawsuits against the tribe.

Clearly, Crist's plan is the worst. Generates little money and explicitly attempts to avoid accountability. The Senate plan appears to be the best. It raises the most money for education -- something we sorely need right now -- and allows for accountability. It does lower the gambling age to 18, but that doesn't really mean much. Anyone that thinks 18-year-olds don't already gamble doesn't understand 18-year-olds. And if they are old enough to be sent overseas to die in pointless wars of aggression by an illegitimate president, then they should be old enough to gamble if they so choose.