But we’re back in action today, and able to report this: Late Wednesday afternoon, the Senate Finance Committee and the Assembly Ways & Means Committee hammered out their differences on a state budget, which will be voted on in the Senate and Assembly shortly. (Alas, other, less technologically hindered news outlets have already reported that.)

We noticed the committees’ action since the meeting dragged on long enough to delay for about an hour the scheduled start of Third House, the biennial, press-sponsored spoof of the Legislature that takes place in the Assembly chambers.

(We at Various Things & Stuff had a minor role in said production, but the real stars were my colleagues Jon Ralston [as Gov. Jim Gibbons] and KLAS-TV Channel 8 reporter Jonathan Humbert [as Johnny Carson]. Those skits killed. And, if the laughter meter was any indicator, nobody likes Gibbons.

Anyway, with that deal and something that seems to be brewing today on transportation, it appears that the Legislature might end on time after all, for the first time in eight years, and only the second time lawmakers have met the constitutionally imposed deadline since it was imposed in 1999.

Yipee!

• With deals on the budget and maybe transportation done or nearly done, it’s time to sound the bell for pork, baby! According to a list of proposed projects we obtained when someone handed it to us, there are millions of dollars in proposed “one shot” funds being wrangled over between Gibbons and the so-called “core group” of key lawmakers doing most of the negotiating this session.

Thus far, it looks like it’s the core group that’s being more conservative than Gibbons, dropping a proposed $2.5 million for High Sierra Industries to $1 million, and a proposed $12 million for Opportunity Village to $3 million. Under the core group’s plan, the Lou Ruvo Brain Institute would get $3 million, not $10 million as the governor had recommended in his budget. The Nevada Cancer Institute would see its funding fall from $10 million to $5 million, under the proposal. And those are just cuts in 2007; there are similar reductions in 2008 and 2009.

All told, the governor recommended spending $40.9 million in 2007, while the core group recommends $15.4 million. In 2008, the governor asked for $13.6 million, but the core group cut that to $6 million. And in 2009, the core group proposes halving the governor’s $5 million request.

How will things finally come out? For that, readers, you’ll have to wait until sine die.

• Holy irony, Batman!

Gibbons signed some bills on Wednesday, not least of which was Senate Bill 118, a bill to give Nevada oversight of mercury transported to the Hawthorne Army Depot, where the Defense Logistics Agency is consolidating all the nation’s military mercury. (Eventually, there will be 4,200 tons stored there.)

Gibbons did fight when he was in Congress to keep the Hawthorne Army Depot from falling under the base-closing axe. So why, you might wonder, is there irony in Gibbons signing a regulatory bill for oversight at the depot?

Because Gibbons is the co-author of an infamous report that said mercury isn’t that bad for you, and even if it is, volcanoes are to blame anyway! So why, if mercury isn’t so bad, would it need to be brought under the regulatory apparatus of the state, thus, in the words of a Gibbons news release, “…ensuring that Nevadans are protected against accidental releases to the environment.”?

Gibbons explains: “The health of Nevadans and our state’s environment have been our top concerns,” the governor said in his statement. “The legislation allows state inspectors the ability to ensure the mercury is being stored safely. It will protect Walker Lake and the people who live nearby while allowing the Hawthorne Army Depot to fortify itself against any future efforts to close the facility.”

So maybe mercury might be bad for us, after all? But this statement does raise a question: If it’s OK to store stuff that’s bad for us in government facilities, in order to keep them open, why is Gibbons against Yucca Mountain again?

• We heard rumors that the New York Times was preparing a big story on Gibbons, but we had bigger expectations of the piece by Jennifer Steinhauer was finally published. It didn’t reveal new info, or snatch the story away from the Wall Street Journal — which has owned Gibbons/federal investigation news since it first broke word that the FBI was investigating him for using his former job in Congress to help Northern Nevada defense contractors.

Still, it does hit all the highlights: the FBI, the veto threats over petty items (which, by the way, the governor later backed away from), the low poll ratings, the plagiarized speech in Elko, the Chrissy Mazzeo incident, the first lady’s pricey inaugural ball gown, and the alcohol ban at the governor’s mansion. It sums with this forgettable quote from Assembly Majority Leader John Oceguera: “How do I give you a politically correct answer? He has a leadership style that is different than I am familiar with.”

Our question: What would possess a member of the opposition party to want to be politically correct in the first place? And surely Oceguera has been in the Legislature long enough to become familiar with the leadership style known as "the FUBAR principle."

• And finally today, we are told by a prominent lobbyist that several people have expressed a disdain for a certain hat that we at Various Things & Stuff don for our outdoor adventures. We won’t play the guilt card — we need the hat to avoid future incidents of skin cancer. But we will suggest a course of action for those who don’t like what our Marine friends call our “cover:” First, take a number. Second, get in line. Third, when it’s your turn, kiss our ass! And have a nice day.

State Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio called a news conference for 9:30 a.m. today, but after about an hour, word came that it had been canceled. Several key players — including Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie and state Sen. Bob Beers — were seen going in and out of Raggio’s office before the announcement came.

And just moments ago, we were told another news conference has been scheduled for 2 p.m. at Gov. Jim Gibbons‘ office following the unveiling of the official portrait of former Gov. Kenny Guinn. What are the odds that the ex-governor can talk some sense into his successor, and perhaps get him to back off his "no new taxes" pledge that’s seemingly holding up progress on the schools budget?

Yeah, that’s what we thought. More after 2 p.m. on that…

But it wasn’t just the frustrating budget negotiations that saw rising tensions. On Monday, things boiled over a bit in at least one committee hearing.

As the Assembly Ways and Means Committee joined with the Senate Finance Committee to review the state’s capital spending projects, state Sen. Bob Coffin objected that he hadn’t seen a list of funding projects until that very day, and that Assemblyman Morse Arberry, the panel’s chairman, was moving too quickly through the spending.

Arberry responded that the committee was simply approving the projects recommended by staff.

“So we’re just ratifying staff?” Coffin asked his fellow Democrat.

“Yes, that’s pretty much what we’re doing,” Arberry replied, adding, “I see where you’re going with this. You’re saying someone sat down with staff [to set the spending priorities]. I did not sit down with staff and go over these recommendations. And I don’t appreciate the accusation.”

Coffin said he wasn’t accusing Arberry personally, but when it came time to vote on projects, he and fellow Democratic state Sen. Bernice Matthews voted no on certain spending projects, killing the proposals on the Senate side. (A majority of Assembly members approved the projects on the Assembly side, which means they will be sent to the full Assembly for approval.)

And Matthews, who is from Reno, also said she hadn’t seen the project list until Monday, took offense at Arberry’s mild suggestion that she was more focused on a Northern Nevada project, perhaps to the exclusion of the rest of the list.

“I’ll get real passionate about that,” Matthews said, insisting she never lets regionalism affect her decisions. “That statement really ticks me off.” Arberry apologized to her.

Unfortunately, Senate Finance Committee chairman Raggio wasn’t there to moderate the dispute; he’d left the meeting hastily upon learning Gibbons had arrived at his office in order to discuss the ongoing stalemate over the budget that was still lingering when everybody went home Monday night.

• Senator Beers, who is cursed with an unfortunate resemblance to your humble correspondent, declined to take the bait on Monday as he left back-room negotiations in Raggio’s office.

Beers is known for his martini-dry sense of humor, so we asked him about the rumor that he’s the lynchpin holding up negotiations that would allow a state budget to be approved. (Back in 2003, then-Assemblyman Beers was a leader of the so-called Mean 15 Assembly members who similarly held up progress on a final tax package, which he thought was too high.)

“Why you gotta hate?” was the end to our long and rather unlettered question.

Beers paused, usually the sign of a pretty good zinger on its way. But this time, he only beamed a cherubic smile and walked out, without sharing the joke with assembled members of the press.

• We learned recently while reading journalist Christopher Hitchens‘ new book, god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, that the Roman Catholic Church long ago did away with the office of “Devil’s Advocate,” a position created to argue against the case for sainthood for those nominated for canonization.

But we decided to fill the role anyway as the Senate Democrats gathered to complain that Gibbons was abandoning his campaign-trail rhetoric about putting education first. Democrats say that by insisting the modified business tax be kept at 0.63 percent before he signs off on any education bill, he’s really putting his political promise not to raise taxes first.

Isn’t there an element of politics on the part of Democrats, too? we asked. Aren’t they trying to force Gibbons to sign off on a tax increase so as to further weaken him politically by making him violate the only real promise he made on the campaign trail?

The response was overwhelming:

“He said education first, first,” replied state Sen. Maggie Carlton. The Democrats noted a campaign video they had located on YouTube in which Gibbons promises “As governor, I’ll make sure more of our tax dollars go directly into the classroom,” and “As governor, my top priority will be to make our schools better.”

It’s not even a tax increase, added Matthews, since the reduction in the modified business tax (from 0.65 to 0.63) was always scheduled to expire in July anyway.

The law — which by the way was created via an initiative circulated by Gibbons himself — says the Legislature has to work on the education budget first, not taxes, reminded state Sen. Steven Horsford.

“He is the person who said you cannot hold education hostage, and that is precisely what he’s doing,” summed Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus.

Good answers, all. This devil’s advocate thing is pretty fun.

• The Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada held a protest outside the Legislature on Monday. We didn’t go, since, well, it’s not air-conditioned outside. Besides, there are always protests going on outside the Legislature. Just the other day, we honked for peace in response to a protester’s sign. You know, from inside our air-conditioned Chevy Impala.

Anyway, the PLAN people — in the person of lobbyist Jan Gilbert — were nice enough to outline their grievances for us anyway: Basically, they don’t like Gibbons because he’s pushing for a tiny reduction in the modified business tax and putting money into “…special ‘pork’ projects such as a military program for youth and a ‘fusion center’ intelligence-gathering operation in the state capital — a proposal already rejected by law enforcement and committees in both the Assembly and Senate.”

We think that’s called a “fusion hub,” PLAN, but that probably doesn’t matter.

“Gibbons priorities doom Nevada to a nightmare of dog-eat-dog communities,” said PLAN’s Executive Director, Bob Fulkerson. “He’s giving pork to the wealthy and bones to our schools.”

The attached list complains that Nevada ranks at the bottom for education and Medicaid funding, but high for uninsured children, meth use, homelessness and teen suicide. But it notes that Chief Executive magazine (it’s really true: there’s a magazine for everything these days) ranks Nevada the No. 2 best state for business.

Must be that low modified business tax.

If you’ve been reading, you’re caught up on most of the happenings. We include a few more herein. Also, we apologize for our recent tendency to make typos. It’s a poor excuse, but we typed up some of our instant blogging on a BlackBerry, which has a tiny screen unsuited to editing, especially late at night. But our mistakes are our fault; our thanks to the anonymous lawmaker who has graciously volunteered time as our copy editor. We hope not to press her into service much more.

Here we go!

• The state Senate doesn’t engage in the bizarre practice of inducting members into something called the “Cowboy Hall of Fame.” But if it did, the funny nickname given to state Sen. Dennis Nolan would no doubt be “The Terminator.” This guy never gives up, and he’s totally robotic in his mission.

Lawmakers have already voted down two Nolan initiatives — one to allow police to issue robo-tickets for red-light running via cameras that snap a picture of your car; another to allow police to pull you over just for not wearing your seat belt. But that doesn’t mean Nolan isn’t going to try, try again.

(To be sure, he was quoted by the Review-Journal saying, “I am not giving up. Nothing is dead until sine die. If something is worth fighting for, then it is worth irritating people for.” Unfortunately, Nolan’s idea of what’s worth fighting for is curiously authoritarian.)

So, Nolan tried to attach the so-called “primary offense” seat belt law to another bill, with a series of amendments designed to make it appeal to reluctant senators. But it failed on a voice vote Friday, dealing Nolan yet another defeat.

But he wasn’t finished: Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman Kelvin Atkinson took to the Assembly floor Saturday to ask his colleagues to reject an amendment that Nolan attached to another bill that would legalize red-light cameras in a pilot program in North Las Vegas.

“Someone snuck some red-light camera action in this bill, and we’re not into red-light cameras in this house,” Atkinson said. The bill now will go to a conference committee, where we’re sure Nolan’s efforts will once again meet with defeat.

Why do we think Gov. Jim Gibbons will sign a tax increase, Mayor Oscar Goodman will give up drinking and we at Various Things & Stuff will go back to being a Republican before Nolan gets his favorite bills signed into law?

• Speaking of things said on the Assembly floor, the room filled with audible gasps after Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto rose to discuss an ethics bill. “We take ethics more seriously in this house” than in the Senate, she said.

Ouch, baby. Very ouch.

• The Las Vegas Sun reported Friday the rumors that had captured some attention in the legislative building: The attempted coup against Republican Minority Leader Garn Mabey.

Coup leader? Assemblyman Ty Cobb, who apparently thinks Mabey is too conciliatory and moderate. Cobb reportedly approached Republican Heidi Gansert, the assistant minority leader, to take over. According to the Sun, she demurred.

You know, Mabey seems like a nice enough guy to us. Sure, he was one of the votes against requiring insurance companies to cover the vaccine for a virus that causes cervical cancer, but he cited medical research to justify his vote. That makes a lot more sense than the stupid and hypocritical opposition to “mandates” cited by others opposed to the bill.

But we think Cobb would make a great minority leader. He obviously wants the job. And as a leader of the Nevada Socialist Workers Party and an officer of the Liberal World Revolutionary Council, we fully endorse Cobb for the job.

And that should tell you everything you need to know. No?

• Gov. Gibbons really, really wants you to know he’s against tax increases.

Last week, he came to the Legislature to tell the Republicans of both the Senate and Assembly he would veto any bill that contained a tax increase. The next day, he held a news conference in his office to tell the press the same thing. He followed up with a statement reiterating his stance, which we dissected on this blog.

And on Saturday, the governor repeated his stance once more, with a twist. He sent out a statement reacting to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority’s Friday special meeting, at which members lambasted the governor for his lack of communication and plan to take LVCVA money for road-building.

Let’s review that e-mailed statement:

“One of my most important jobs as governor is to raise issues and propose solutions that benefit the people of Nevada. If yesterday’s LVCVA meeting and some of the comments that came out of that meeting are any indication, I have certainly done my job and inspired some rather spirited discussions. People who at one point said that no money could be spared are now willing to step up with millions. That is progress.”

See? Gibbons is just like Jonathan Swift, making modest proposals. He only wants to spark debate! He doesn’t really want to gut the LVCVA’s budget, destroy its bond rating and prevent it from expanding its convention center! (Well, actually he does, but that’s another blog.)

But, Gibbons does have a point: The initial reaction from the LVCVA was that they couldn’t spare a dime, and on Friday, leaders admitted that it could spare, like, $20 million for roads. The first rule of politics, people: Always keep your options open. By saying "no way" from the starting gun, and later compromising, the LVCVA has hurt itself.

More Gibbons:

“We have a responsibility to address this transportation crisis — and as governor I have a responsibility to suggest solutions — solutions that can be debated and resolved.

“I have said from the beginning that my proposal is just that — a proposal — and that I was and am willing to listen to other suggestions and ideas in order to resolve this problem. I meant that then, and I mean that now.”

Why, he sounds downright reasonable. Open minded, even. Might the governor be actually willing to compromise?

No, not really.

“However, I also said last year and have repeated often this year, I will not raise taxes on the people of this state. For anyone who doubts my resolve on this — let me make it clear one more time — I will not raise taxes to fund the transportation problems of our state, period. I have said from the beginning that I do not believe the citizens of this state should be required to shoulder the burden of paying for growth through higher taxes. There should be no mystery here about my position on increased taxes.”

Actually, the only real mystery is this: Gibbons acknowledges that the growth in new residents is causing the problem, but doesn’t believe “…the citizens of this state should be required to shoulder the burden of paying for growth though higher taxes.”

So residents should get roads for free? We shouldn’t make growth pay for growth? Who should bear the burden, then? And can we get those sugar daddies to pay for our other stuff, too? For example, we at Various Things & Stuff are thinking of buying a new car. Can we make tourists pay for it?

Gibbons goes on to point out that the state budget has increased by 16.5 percent, or $954 million in increased spending. “We have existing revenue streams that can and should fund our needs. We can and will use those revenues, not create new ones," the statement reads.

Of course, we disagree. Some of the $954 million is eaten up by what they call “roll up” costs, or the regular increases in the cost of programs. (For example, more students in schools means more money is needed for schools.) Because of inaction from past legislatures, we’ve got backlogs in road and prison building. And it would be nice to get kids started earlier on their pathway to smartification, as our president might say, wouldn’t it? That costs.

Finally:

“I can accept compromise. I cannot, and the people of this state cannot, accept inaction. Therefore, I call on [Assembly] Speaker [Barbara] Buckley to schedule hearings on this transportation bill as soon as possible.”

Interesting, in two ways: First, because Gibbons didn’t step forward until very recently, there is no bill with his transportation plan to hold hearings on. Mabey has reportedly agreed to carry the measure, but has yet to introduce it. We’re all waiting on that one…

Second, we can’t help but notice that Gibbons didn’t also call on Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio to hold hearings on his plan, did he? Could that be because Raggio has already signed off on it? (Answer: NO! Raggio didn’t stand behind Gibbons at a news conference at which the governor’s plan was announced.) Perhaps its because Gibbons doesn’t want to annoy Raggio — always a good political possibility — since Raggio will soon be deciding on a final transportation plan that may involve the one thing Gibbons refused to compromise on: taxes.

At a news conference Wednesday, Gibbons expressed frustration that the state Legislature seemed not to be listening to his demands that it pass a law preventing the modified business tax (also known as the payroll tax) from rising 0.63 percent to 0.65 percent.

We know it must be a hard realization for Gibbons — about as many people pay attention to him now as did when he was on the House floor making one-minute speeches about … stuff that nobody ever paid attention to anyway. But that doesn’t mean he’s entitled to just make stuff up.

Consider his e-mail, which we will analyze herein:

“This past week I made it clear that I could not support a state budget that does not keep the Modified Business Tax at its current level. Some people may not realize how a tax on business affects them, but it affects every Nevadan.”

So true, governor! The tax is part of what enables the state to provide us with highway patrol troopers, schoolteachers, social services for the needy and National Guard soldiers, who we’d really like you to get back to Nevada as fire season kicks off, by the way.

“Virtually every business in Nevada, except banks, which pay their own tax, pays the state a Modified Business Tax. The current rate is 0.63 percent of the wages paid by an employer. That applies to the corner store as well as to the big corporation — nearly 60,000 businesses in all. If you’re an employer, you pay the tax.”

And while we at Various Things and Stuff are wage slaves and thus don’t pay the tax, we’re sure that business owners appreciate that Gibbons knows they’re taxpayers, too. We’re also glad to see that, according to the governor, everyone is doing his or her part in paying collectively (and progressively) for the things that we all use as a society. Thanks, employers!

“This tax is about to increase unless the Legislature stops that from happening. Current law stipulates that the MBT will go up to 0.65 percent on July 1st. That would add $18.2 million in tax burden to Nevada businesses over the next two years. Who would pay that added cost of doing business in our state? You and I would pay it, as employers would be forced to pass their increased cost to consumers. Some people argue this is not a tax increase, because it was set in motion by a previous legislature. If, two months from now, you must pay more than you do now for goods and services, due to the sellers’ higher costs … would you not consider that an increase.”

Now, here’s where we have to part ways with the governor, given that he’s departed once again from reality. Let’s point out a few things about the above paragraph:

1.) If there really are nearly 60,000 businesses in Nevada, and if the tax burden really is going to be a grand total of $18.2 million, that works out on average to $303.33 per business, per year. Yes, we know the total will be higher on some businesses than it will on others, but please! If $303 causes a business to go under, it must have been run by the late and unlamented Ken Lay. (Lay, by the way, is a fine example of the very free market principles that Gibbons embraces.)

2.) You and I would pay the additional cost? Really? So that means that if the tax goes down, you and I will see the prices of goods and services fall commensurately? The real fear that we have is not that Gibbons tosses out this rhetoric like a money flinging feces at zoo visitors, but that he might actually believe it.

Back in 2003, the state’s gambling industry did a little survey in some surrounding states, all of which impose an income tax on businesses. They bought a host of goods in those states, and compared them to prices in Nevada, which has no tax on business profits. Do you know what they found? Virtually no difference. That’s right: Businesses in Nevada were not passing along any “savings” they got from failing to pay income taxes here to citizens.

3.) We know a few people who know about economics, and one of them once told us that it’s not always possible for a business to pass along higher costs to consumers. In many cases, these economists patiently explained to us, factors like competition prevent an increase in price without a commensurate loss in business. And given the tiny nature of the increase, it’s likely that there would be only a negligible increases in costs anyway.

4.) We don’t argue it’s not a tax increase because it was passed by a previous legislature (once again, Gibbons cannot get quotes right to save his life!). We argue it’s a tax increase that everybody knew about because it was written into the law, which persons of ordinary intelligence can easily anticipate. Unlike, say, the green building tax, in which the Legislature changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game, the increase in the payroll tax was known to all.

In fact, Gibbons discussed this concept during that Wednesday news conference: He said the sunset clause that triggers the increase was put in the law in order to get it passed by the Legislature. Precisely! It would never have become law otherwise. And that means the will of the majority of the Legislature was that this tax expire, on July 1, 2007.

“I originally submitted a bill to the Nevada Legislature that would have reduced the burden on business by permanently setting the MBT at 0.62 percent, which would have saved Nevada businesses $27,326,585 over the next two years. I compromised once, by giving up my tax reduction. Now I am fighting a tax increase, something I have promised Nevada taxpayers I will not allow. In February, I submitted a balanced budget with no tax increases. Three months later, my position has not changed. I have put the Legislature on notice that I will not approve a state budget that creates this tax increase.”

More thoughts:

1.) Gibbons assumes that his permanent reduction of the payroll tax to 0.62 percent would have been successful, but that’s far from certain. In fact, he’s treating a future possible outcome as if it were reality. It would be like us saying that we’ve compromised in our personal budget because, while we planned to pick up a nice Mercedes Benz S600 sedan for $140,675 (we just love that V-12 engine’s 510 horses!) we’ve “compromised” by scaling back to a $20,000 Honda Accord, thus saving $120,675. We really haven’t saved a dime, since we never had the cash in hand to buy the Benz in the first place! Ditto Gibbons: He really can’t compromise on something he never really had to give away.

2.) Yes, Gibbons has put the Legislature on notice. Three times now, by our count. Clearly, he’s frustrated that lawmakers seem to be continuing to plan for an additional $18 million in revenue, and seem to be ignoring his repeated declaration of no new taxes. But why should they? The Legislature didn’t take the stupid no new taxes promise, nor does the Legislature have everything to lose by violating it.

We’d suggest Gibbons get some skywriters to paint “no new taxes” in the air above the legislative building. Oh, no, wait: How about one of those banners that trail behind the airplanes? Maybe a Stripper Gram? (We know some lawmakers would get THAT message!) How about a birthday cake with “no new taxes” written in frosting and a card with the word “governor” in big letters, just to remind lawmakers that — despite plenty of evidence suggesting it was a not good idea — Gibbons was actually elected to the office?

CARSON CITY — The Assembly voted unanimously this morning to apply political fundraising rules to legal defense funds, including the rule that says you can’t raise money during the so-called “blackout dates,” 30 days before, during and 30 days after a legislative session.

The vote follows the state Senate’s unanimous approval of Senate Bill 425 in April. The bill will now head to Gov. Jim Gibbons, whose legal defense fund was the reason for the bill in the first place.

Gibbons secretly formed a legal defense fund to pay attorneys to defend him against various charges, including allegations that he tried to assault a woman in a Las Vegas parking garage and that he used his former position as a congressman to help Northern Nevada defense contractors get federal contracts.

It was only after my colleague Jon Ralston asked Gibbons how he was paying his lawyers was it revealed that he’d formed the fund and taken big donations from people with interests before the Legislature. Moreover, some donations exceeded maximum limits in Nevada law. Gibbons amended his financial disclosure form to characterized the legal defense donations as “gifts,” which drew the attention of Secretary of State Ross Miller.

But after Gibbons showed Miller evidence that checks were made out to a legal defense fund, and not to Gibbons’ campaign accounts, Miller concluded that no state law banned what Gibbons had done. (We disagreed with that decision, which we think was akin to a bank robber telling the FBI he was simply making a withdrawal. But whatever.)

So state Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus introduced a bill defining legal defense funds, providing for disclosure of donors, establishing limits and banning donations during the “blackout dates.”

The irony: Titus was the Democratic nominee against Gibbons during the 2006 campaign, and dislikes him intensely to this day. (We understand she went off on him during a committee meeting this morning, complaining about what she sees as his military fetish.) The historical irony: The last time Titus got a bill through the Legislature unanimously was in 2003, when she was trying to prevent development atop Blue Diamond Hill, overlooking the Red Rock Canyon National Recreation Area.

The conclusion: Lawmakers hate secret, possibly illegal legal defense funds as much as they love the pristine, unspoiled beauty of Red Rock. Or something.

In other news, many bills are passing, some amendments are being concurred with, others are being not concurred with, and it looks like a long night as the deadline for bills to pass the second house approaches. Anybody got the number for the Carson City Domino’s?

No way. Word among all parties now is that we’re leaping into yet another special session when the regular one comes to a screeching and constitutionally mandated halt at midnight on June 4. (Or perhaps 1 a.m. on June 5, given the whole daylight savings time thing.)

Yes, once more, the Legislature will fail to meet the deadline imposed by voters in the late 1990s. In fact, they’ve only met that deadline one time, in 1999. Since then, there have been more special sessions than regular.

But we shall not complain about our lot, trapped here in the capital. After all, it’s hot down in Las Vegas! Instead, we’ll just lay some knowledge on you about the happenings in the north, which a special package of Legislature 2007 Quick Hits. Here we go!

• How did Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio pull his political necromancy routine on his favored Senate Joint Resolution 2, the bill that would amend the Nevada Constitution to allow judges to be appointed to an initial term on the bench? He just asked nicely, said Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley.

Buckley, who with Raggio can bring any bill back from the dead before the final gavel falls, says she didn’t even do any horse trading with Raggio on the subject, since she agrees with the premise of appointing judges, too.

It’s like we always said: Buckley and Raggio probably get along better than Gov. Jim Gibbons and Raggio, and they’re in the same (technically) party.

• Speaking of Buckley, she reported the same thing — in almost the same words — that we’d heard earlier in the week on finishing the education budget. “We’re about an inch away. Some days the last inch is the most difficult,” she said.

“To me, the important thing isn’t to get education first, it’s to get better education funding,” she said. (Education First, the initiative circulated by then-Congressman Jim Gibbons, is mucking up the Legislature’s efforts to close down the session. Some lawmakers want to know how much money will be left for other budgets, which they won’t know until education is finalized. Others want to be able to go back and add money to the education budget once the others are finished, but see little chance that there will be money left.)

And Gibbons? Buckley says his 11th-hour list of demands (reported in a previous blog) is screwing things up, too. “It’s so incredibly late,” she said of Gibbons’ must-have list, lest he veto the budget. “We are shutting down the session.” To accommodate Gibbons’ requests, the Legislature would need to pull bill drafters away from crafting the language of the bills that will make up the state’s spending plans for the next two years, as well as hold new hearings while lawmakers are trying desperately to close budgets on a host of state agencies.

And what of the governor’s demand to prevent the expiration of the modified business tax, which will rise to 0.65 percent of payroll from the current 0.63 percent unless the Legislature acts? Buckley was cagey on that one, saying it’s still on the table. Some lawmakers, however, are counting on that extra revenue for things like education.

• Buckley also said it’s “imperative” that the green building tax issue be resolved before sine die. The final package, she said, will have some tax incentives, “but not at the expense of our children.”

We’re not so sure progress is being made, however. Late Thursday, a nicely dressed lobbyist told us that the disagreement over how big a property tax break would be granted — the original bill had a three-tiered system starting at 25 percent, 30 percent and 35 percent, while the controversial amendment sets those numbers at 2 percent, 5 percent and 8 percent — still had not been resolved.

We also understand that legal opinions to counter the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s memo of this week — which essentially says the Legislature can do what it wants and nobody can expect it will keep its policies the same from year to year — is in the works. We can’t wait to see that one.

• It’s old home week up in Carson City. Former Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins is making the rounds of the place, just like in the old days.

Perkins — who has been used as a pincushion by virtually every columnist at the Review-Journal for refusing to disclose the clients of his political consulting side business — told us he wasn’t going to spill the beans as to who was paying him for political advice. Frankly, we think that’s the wrong approach: Since Perkins is still chief of police, a public official, we think he ought to tell the public who he’s representing. Sure, it’s not legally required, but it’s the right thing to do. And appreciating that distinction is the difference between political knowledge and wisdom.

Plus, we reason that if he tells us at Various Things & Stuff and we break it on the blog, he’ll accomplish two important ends: First, he’ll piss off the R-J, where at least two columnists (we’re not naming names) have been completely over-the-top in their criticism of him. And two, it will still remain pretty much secret, since we only have, like, 12 readers.

What do you say, Mr. Speaker? We’re ready when you are!

• Thursday was the day the Legislature indulges one of its members — Assemblyman John Carpenter, the Elko Republican — with the annual inductions into the Cowboy Hall of Fame. Essentially, the Legislature takes a break from its business so that lawmakers can don funny cowboy hats and laugh as Carpenter presents each with a cowbow nickname and some gifts.

There were 13 inductees this year, in ceremonies played to cowboy music that lasted — according to one astute observer — for 28 minutes, which in Legislative time is actually 10 minutes.

Alas, nobody got the nicknames we were waiting to hear: Quicky McFinishontime, Swifty Deadlinemaker, Hurry O’Budgetwrapper or perhaps Ready Homeontimer. We suppose that’s just not the cowboy way.

• The Assembly did take time to pass some bills, however. Under legislation approved on Thursday, no trucks will be able to drive on State Route 159, the scenic route through Red Rock Canyon. (We would have appreciated that when we lived near Summerlin, as we sometimes used that road on the way home from California to avoid rush-hour Las Vegas traffic. We hated getting stuck behind huge trucks whose drivers had the same idea.)

Senate Bill 312, which provides an alternative route to a diploma for students who repeatedly fail the state’s proficiency exams, also got Assembly approval, with 13 Assembly members objecting, including Republicans Francis Allen, Carpenter, Bob Beers, Chad Christensen, Ty Cobb, Ed Goedhart, John Marvel, James Settlemeyer, and Lynn Stewart, along with Democrats Marcus Conklin, Harvey Munford, John Oceguera and James Ohrenschall.

A law against leaving poor defenseless pets in hot cars also passed. We think that’s a good idea, especially for cats. We love cats. And we’re secure enough to say so.

And the Assembly signed off on amendments to Assembly Joint Resolution 3, which regulates the use of eminent domain.

• And finally today, a little bird suggested we go back and look at the 2006 Ethics Commission opinion in the matter of Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki, who was at the time serving as Nevada’s state treasurer.

This week, a devastating audit was released that accused Krolicki of breaking state budget laws and exceeding legislatively approved budgets in the marketing of Nevada’s College Savings Program. (Ads for that program featured none other than Brian Krolicki!) The lieutenant governor was quick to point out that the Ethics Commission had cleared him of wrongdoing, in an opinion released in March.

We found some of the “findings of fact,” based entirely on Krolicki’s own representations to the commission, very interesting. And by very interesting, we mean “totally false.”

Consider: Under the findings of fact, the ethics commission concluded that “the marketing plan [for the college program] and materials for the plans are approved by the board [of trustees for the program].”

Oh really? Because we could have sworn the auditors who reviewed the college savings program said differently. Oh, that’s right, they did, right there on Page 30: “Furthermore, information presented to the board and minutes of board meetings contained no indication that the board had ever been informed of how the marketing and administrative support payments were being handled.”

The findings of fact released by the Ethics Commission also say “The costs of the marketing activities are borne by [program contractor] UPromise and not by Nevada taxpayers out of the state general fund.”

Hmmmm. Where did we read that money that should have been going to the state was actually used in marketing for the program? Oh, that’s right, the audit!

“Although participant money in the Nevada College Savings Program was properly handled and accounted for, money earned by the state was not. More than $6 million of state funds was held outside the state system and used to pay program expenses. As a result, the expenditure levels authorized by the Legislature have been exceeded,” the audit says. “Of the $11.2 million in funding available to the state since the program started, more than $6 million was not deposited in the state treasury.”

One more? Oh, all right. “At Mr. Krolicki’s request, television advertising for the plans ceased in March of 2006 because he was concerned about the perception the ads might create during his 2006 campaign.”

Really? Because he was concerned? Or was it because he was exposed? Because we seem to recall in January of 2006 that our friend and colleague Erin Neff penned a little piece exposing Krolicki’s free publicity scheme.

The Ethics Commission’s opinion contains a boldface, all-caps disclaimer at the end that indicates the opinion is based on the information provided by Krolicki, and that no independent investigation was undertaken to determine if he was telling the truth. (From now on, by the way, we should always investigate everything that Krolicki says to determine if he’s telling the truth.) We wonder if the Ethics Commission had another crack at this case — with the truth uncovered by legislative auditors — would the result be the same?

That’s due in part to a 13-page legal opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau that says the state is perfectly free to take away the generous, so-called green building tax breaks it enacted a scant two years ago, which could see the state lose millions in tax revenue.

Now, the common notion of fairness dictates that if the state is going to pass a tax plan (which it did in its oh-so-brief special session in 2005, in the form of Assembly Bill 3) and businesses are going to rely upon that tax plan and take certain actions and incur certain costs to comply, then the state shouldn’t go and change the rules, especially before the program is really even up and running.

But "fair," dear readers, is where the pigs are, or so says a Legislative Counsel Bureau legal opinion requested by Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley. (We’re paraphrasing of course.)

See, the Legislature apparently didn’t realize when it passed AB 3 that the green building tax breaks would be so wildly popular, and that so many developers would take advantage of the program. (AB 3 allows a property tax break for 10 years and up to 50 percent and a sales tax break on materials purchased for green buildings. In some cases, the tax breaks amount to millions; and since sales and property tax go to support, say, public schools, all of a sudden there was a big problem.)

Now the Legislature has a nifty fix all ready in the form of Assembly Bill 621, and an amendment that was unveiled on Wednesday. It would exempt taxes for schools from the tax break, and reduce the property tax exemption from 25 percent for a “silver” environmental certification to 2 percent; 30 percent for a “gold” level to 5 percent; and 35 percent for a “platinum” level to 8 percent. (The certifications are issued by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED.)

That’s clearly a dramatic reduction, and it caught the eye of several business leaders, who objected (more on that in a second). But first, let’s check the legal opinion that says it’s all OK. According to the document, prepared by Senate Legal Counsel Kevin Powers, AB 3 didn’t create an agreement or contract with anybody, it just created tax policy. Therefore, the businesses that moved forward to try to comply with the provisions of the law couldn’t rely on them in perpetuity, since they had to know they could be repealed at any time.

“Rather, the general laws only established a state’s tax policy, which always remained subject to revision and repeal by a subsequent state legislature. Consequently, the [U.S. Supreme] Court held that a subsequent state legislature had the power to amend or repeal the tax abatements and exemptions at time, regardless of whether any person had already incurred expense to comply with the requirements of the tax abatements and exemptions,” the opinion says.

Quoting a U.S. Supreme Court decision as proof, the opinion adds: “Its [the law’s] continuance is a matter of public policy only; and those who rely on it must base their reliance on the free and voluntary good faith of the legislature.”

The free and voluntary good faith of the Legislature? When money is on the table? We’re afraid the well-known legal doctrine articulated in the seminal case of Fickle Finger of Fate v. U.R. SOL, Inc. is implicated here, which finding famously declared, “the milk of human kindness has dried up at the tit.”

But check this out, if you will: Back in 1872, the Michigan Legislature established a law that totally exempted all property used to bore for salt, and agreed to pay a bounty of 10 cents per bushel of salt manufactured from salt brine bored out of wells in the state. Some poor saps formed an entire company — the East Saginaw Salt Manufacturing Co. — and produced at least 5,000 bushels of salt. But just two years later (coincidentally, the same time frame we’re talking about here) the Michigan Legislature amended the law to limit the tax exemption to just five years, and put a $5,000 cap on the bushel bounties. The Salt Co. sued, but the U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected the argument, saying the company acted based on a general law — not a specific promise to the company — and thus the law was always subject to repeal.

Brutal and unfair? Most definitely. This company was created in response to a law, and got totally screwed just two years thereafter. In Nevada, existing companies were simply taking advantage of a new law for new construction.

But legal? According to the U.S. Supreme Court, perfectly so.

So can companies sue the state under a legal doctrine called “estoppel,” which basically says that if a person relies on what another person tells him — and gets screwed in the process (we’re paraphrasing, of course) — the first person is “estopped” from exacting negative consequences against the first?

No way, says Powers’ opinion.

“Indeed, if the doctrine of estoppel could be applied against the state under such ordinary circumstances, it would be nearly impossible for the state to enforce new or revised laws against existing industries,” the opinion says. “Accordingly, it is a well-established rule that application of the doctrine of estoppel is always subordinate to the sovereign power of the Legislature to amend or repeal laws to protect the public interest.”

And one more: “We believe it would be patently unjustifiable and unreasonable for a person to reply on the continued existence of tax abatements or exemptions enacted by general laws given the centuries-old principle that such general laws are always subject to amendment or repeal by a subsequent legislature,” the opinion says. “Simply put, it would be naïve and ill-adivsed for a person to assume that existing tax laws will not change. Thus, if any person committed money, time and resources to apply for and qualify for the existing tax abatements and exemptions enacted by sections six and seven of AB 3, the person was ‘bound to take notice of the fact that the legislature was at liberty to repeal the act at any time.’"

In other words, it’s naïve and ill-advised for people to rely on the state not to totally screw them over after they’ve made good-faith efforts to comply with a new law, admittedly in order to save money on their new building projects? It’s naïve and ill-advised for people to trust the state not to change the rules of the game in the middle of that game, thus costing them money that they (likely) otherwise would not have spent? It’s naïve and ill-advised to think that the “good faith of the Legislature” is either “good” or “faithful”?

That’s precisely what the opinion says. And it could have dangerous consequences for the future.

What person is going to choose to try to comply with a new law that may have noble purpose (in this case, using less energy and contributing less to global climate change) if they suspect that the promises and programs and policies of today are going to change entirely tomorrow? If there is no stability in the law, the answer is: Only a naïve and ill-advised, person. To coin a phrase.

Doubt us? At a hearing on the amendment to AB 621 Wednesday, Boyd Gaming representatives said the amendment precludes them from participating in the program. Boyd’s Echelon Place President Kevin Sullivan said his company applied for the program in good faith, but the Legislature (assuming the amendment is approved) will have taken a credit worth $100 and effectively made it worth less than a dollar.

Attorney Terry Graves, representing the World Jewelry Center, planned for downtown Las Vegas, said that area’s only chance of restoration is jeopardized by the abatement. (Granted, he had to defend himself against another provision in AB 621 that says you can’t get green building tax rebates if you’re getting other tax incentives, which World Market Center is, thanks to its location in the city’s redevelopment area. The project has been accused of “double-dipping,” which as you all know is a total party foul with both chips and taxes.)

MGM Mirage lobbyist Tim Crowley very politely said that his company is opposed to the amendment, a low-key presentation that belied the fact that MGM Mirage probably has the most to lose, since it’s $7 billion Project CityCenter has applied for the tax breaks under the existing scheme.

Yes, yes, we know: Never feel sorry for a man who owns a plane. These are big businesses, and they have enough money that we shouldn’t be too worried that it’s their ox being gored. But it’s the principle at stake that is more important: If you can’t rely on the law as passed by the government when you’re about to do something, how badly could you be screwed?

Say, for example, that you got a tax rebate from Nevada of $1,000 per year for five years if you buy a Toyota Prius, a hybrid Honda Civic or the like. And then, after one year, the Legislature changes its mind and says, forget it. It’s costing us too much money. We’re capping the rebate at one year. You bought the car anticipating a $5,000 break, which you suddenly don’t have. How pissed would you be, especially if you got a letter from the state saying, well, you should have known we can change the rules at any time? Sorry about that.

Essentially, that’s what’s being said in some of these hearings. And whether or not that’s the final word is something everybody’s waiting to find out.

Another source tells us that disagreement isn’t over the big issues of education — whether and by how much to expand full-day kindergarten; empowerment schools, and the like — but about technical and vocational education. And here we thought Republicans viewed ALL education as vocational education, helping us to take our place in their Big Capitalist Money Machine.

Into this fray stepped Gov. Jim Gibbons, who called a morning news conference to confirm what he told Republicans in caucus meetings on Tuesday: He’ll have no problem vetoing the budget if it doesn’t contain four things that he really wants.

The four:

• Preventing the modified business tax break from expiring. The tax will revert to the old rate of 0.65 percent in July unless the Legislature acts to prevent it, which isn’t looking likely. Currently, the tax is at 0.63 percent, and Gibbons has said he’s compromised by abandoning his original call for it to be reduced to 0.62 percent.

• Getting $15.3 million in funding for empowerment schools, using the 0.01 percent of revenue from the modified business tax and — in another example of stirring gubernatorial compromise — not eliminating the bank branch excise tax.

• Funding the Nevada ChalleNGe Program, a National Guard program for youth, at $1.7 million.

• Funding for a state fusion hub to collect and distribute homeland security intelligence information statewide. It would cost $651,493 initially.

No big deal, right? These things make up but a tiny chunk of the state’s state’s $7 billion budget. So what’s the problem?

First, Gibbons’ visit to Republicans with these lines in the sand (and today’s news conference) took place in late May, with less than two weeks to go until the scheduled sine die of June 4. Second, only one of these proposals has to do with education, which lawmakers are feverishly negotiating on first because of a Gibbons-sponsored initiative that requires the education budget to be funded before any other. And third, the revenue from the scheduled expiration of the modified business tax has been baked into the legislature’s budget calculations like blueberries into pie.

We asked Gibbons at his news conference about the modified business tax issue, which he called “literally a tax increase.” Yes, governor, we said, but didn’t everybody know this tax was going back up? After all, the legislation that reduced it to 0.63 percent had a sunset clause that everybody knew about.

Yes, people knew, Gibbons said, but the sunset clause was “some sort of compromise” to get the bill passed. (Duh: It wouldn’t have passed without it, thus, it was the will of a majority of lawmakers that it be temporary!)

“I disagree. We need a stable tax system,” Gibbons added. But what’s unstable about a temporary reduction in a tax that everybody knows is going to go back up eventually? Unless — and we find this hard to believe — the dastardly Republicans ALWAYS INTENDED to make this tax cut permanent?! Oh, Republicans. Why do you hate taxes so?

Anyway, Gibbons pointed out that he’s always been against tax increases, and that he’s given up a few things, so it shouldn’t be too hard for the Legislature to include a few of his programs in its budget. But every time he or his staff visits the building (other than Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio’s office, of course) it seems as if lawmakers aren’t listening or aren’t hearing what he’s saying, the governor said.

But isn’t there another possibility, which is that lawmakers simply don’t care? That they’re settled with gathering the votes to override a gubernatorial veto? Gibbons acknowledged that was a possibility.

We’re starting to think, however, that a veto could actually help Gibbons. Opinion polls show him trailing President George W. Bush, Congress and cancer in favorability ratings, and a veto (preceded, of course, by a veto threat) could make him look like a strong leader in the face of those liberal Democrats who want desperately to responsibly meet the state’s obligations? (As our colleague Jon Ralston pointed out, however, the alleged “liberals” in the Legislature are hardly clamoring for new taxes. It’s only the liberals in the press who are doing that.)

The coverage Gibbons could get with a veto would be impressive. And the storyline couldn’t be better: Governor stands up to pressure, keeps promise and protects taxpayers.

“I hope we never get to that,” Gibbons said at the conclusion of the news conference. But, he noted at the beginning, he’s got not fear of going there. “I will not accept this budget if it doesn’t have some of these moderate concessions,” he said.

Meanwhile, back at the Legislature, negotiations continue on the schools budget, the green building tax breaks and the ever-elusive transportation funding scheme.

One cynic darkly said both sides have given up on reaching a transportation solution in the regular session, and are simply looking to score political points with whatever bill is finally passed. You know: Pass a bill that has broad public appeal, perhaps as measured by the recent and unsurprising Review-Journal polls, and then blame the other side for not supporting it. (Republicans are still crowing about the “Barbara Buckley plan” that has $2 billion in taxes in it.)

And as we said, for all the grief they get for being “liberal,” there’s not a single Democrat in the building willing to embrace the gas tax. Not Assembly Speaker Buckley, or Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus. Not Transportation Committee Chairman Kelvin Atkinson. Nobody. (In fact, it’s just us at Various Things & Stuff tilting at that particular windmill.) The Democrats, by contrast, are looking at more palatable diversions that spread the tax burden around. 

And what’s up with the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority calling a special meeting for Friday “…to discuss transportation issues within Clark County”? Could this perhaps have something to do with Gibbons’ plan to divert an ever-growing portion of the authority’s room tax revenue to pay for building roads? Perhaps it could. Consider this from a Tuesday news release:

“We are committed to taking a leadership role in finding methods to fund our transportation needs,” said Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, who is chairman of the convention authority. “Our opposition to the governor’s proposal is due to the significant harm it would cause this organization and as a result, the negative impact it would have on all Southern Nevada residents and businesses. Any solution needs to be fair and balanced, and within the legal and constitutional frameworks.”

Clearly, this is a retreat from the LVCVA’s initial stance, which was to refuse outright to allow any tax money to be diverted. Now, it seems, Goodman is opening the door to allowing that to happen, provided it won’t cause “significant harm” or a “negative impact.” Isn’t that what “taking a leadership role” is all about?

More later, as a hearing on the green building tax breaks is about to resume. (We’re really hoping this passes, as we have plans for a thatched-roof tiki bar that we think totally qualifies for the abatement.) But if you were sitting at home hoping for the Legislature to end on time, we’re pretty sure you can forget it. Enough Carson City veterans have told us that’s not going to happen that we’ve begun to believe them.