One of the most honored words in the Finnish language is profound in its simplicity: Sisu.

Popularized during the resistance in the 1940s, the word is often translated loosely as “courage,” but its meaning goes beyond the bravery of, say, dashing into the line of fire. It conveys a special perseverance - an ability to face adversity with courage, but in a rational manner, with tenacity and long-term resolve.

Sisu is precisely what Ohio’s budget crisis requires from its leaders. Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, and the GOP-controlled Ohio Senate are at an impasse over the governor’s proposal to cover $933 million of the $3.2 billion gap in the state budget by authorizing video lottery terminals (VLTs), commonly known as “video slots,” at horse race tracks.

Strickland wants the lawmakers to enact VLT legislation. The Senate now proposes a November ballot issue to let the voters decide.

Voters should decide something as fundamental as a major expansion of gambling. But there’s a problem. The fall ballot is nearly certain to include a proposed constitutional amendment to permit full casinos in four cities, among them Cincinnati. It would authorize casino gambling only at those locations, and defines “casino gambling” as “any type of slot machine or table game wagering.” State lottery games and charitable bingo are exempt from the ban on other gambling.

That raises questions: Are VLTs “slot machines” or a form of lottery game? Could casino operators, with the authority of the newly amended state constitution behind them, insist VLTs be shut down, cutting off that $933 million? Or will courts agree that, technically, they are an electronic lottery and therefore exempt? Should elected officials be betting the state budget that VLTs will fly legally?

VLTs will face legal challenges no matter how they are authorized, whether the casino issue passes or fails. What happens if they are tied up in court?

The deeper questions are philosophical: Should the state balance its budget and fund core services such as education with gambling receipts, estimates of which can be unreliable? Should the state be asking - and depending on - citizens to squander their own resources on these machines?
Strickland and the Senate GOP may be squabbling over the manner and the timing, but both see expanded gambling as a budget solution. That, I believe, is dangerous. Just ask Indiana. Gambling revenues plunged 13.5 percent in the first half of 2009 at Southern Indiana riverboats, the Enquirer’s Alexander Coolidge reports.

Revenue from gambling ought to be considered icing on the cake, not funding for basic functions of government, and not money you balance your budget on. It ought to go into a form of “rainy day” fund to tap in hard times.

Meanwhile, Ohio must enact a balanced budget immediately. Strickland and the legislature have two unpalatable but unavoidable options: They can make up that $933 million with additional budget cuts, or find it in additional tax revenues. Most likely, the answer will be a combination.

Many are calling this a budget “stalemate,” but that implies that both sides are unable to move.

Both can move, and both must do so now. They will if they act rationally and resolutely for the state’s long-term good. They will if they act with sisu.