A decision by Republicans in the Kansas House to remove any potential new gambling dollars from budget discussions this year was a bit arbitrary but it reflects a legitimate concern about counting on money that is far from a sure thing.

In her proposed budget, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius included about $80 million in expected income from gaming operations. That figure is based on estimates of revenue the state would receive from slot machines and from fees paid by developers of slot-machine and casino projects. The money was directed to a number of capital projects in the state, including the expansion of the Kansas University School of Pharmacy and repairs on college campuses, as well as to cost-of-living increases for retired public employees and pay raises for current state employees.

These are important, if not mandatory, areas of state spending. Paying for them with money from state gambling operations that have yet to be declared constitutional isn’t prudent.

To ensure that the state was on a firm legal footing with its law to establish state-owned casinos, the Kansas attorney general filed a “friendly” lawsuit last year. A Shawnee County District Court judge upheld the constitutionality of the law this week, but the final word will come from the Kansas Supreme Court, which has scheduled arguments on the case for May 14, well after the current Legislature is expected to adjourn. That leaves any gambling money in serious budget limbo.

In response to that fact, House Republicans decided Thursday not to consider gambling money in any of their budget talks. A memo from the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee also instructed subcommittees not to consider any spending enhancements slated to be funded by gambling money.

In a tight budget year, all new spending probably deserves careful scrutiny, but the top Democrat in the House, Minority Leader Dennis McKinney balked at the arbitrary nature of the memo. “Sometimes the enhancements are for well-thought-out ideas,” McKinney said, citing increased aviation research and training at Wichita State University as an example.

McKinney has a point that that such projects are a good investment for the state. In fact, some of the projects on the list for gambling revenue are so important they deserve a funding source that is more certain than revenue from gambling operations that have yet to be declared legal.

As always, legislators face a difficult balancing act, but with the nation in an economic downturn, it’s not a good time to count on uncertain revenue sources to fund important state projects.