"Gibbons has road revenue plan," screams the Page One headline in the Review-Journal this morning. And why not? It is news that Gibbons has finally come up with a plan to fund the building of new roads. The Democrats have been tossing out ideas for months.

There’s a few things — mined from the story — that we want to note for the record. Let’s do the list:

• Gibbons was flanked by Republican lawmakers while making his announcement, with Democrats (like Assembly Majority Leader John Oceguera, for example) learning about the plan for the very first time while standing in the audience. Nice bipartisanship, less than a month before the Legislature is supposed to adjourn. Does Gibbons know that the support of the Assembly Republican caucus doesn’t mean much when it comes to passing bills in that house? And does he know that Democrats will have to sign off on any plan that comes through the Assembly?
  
• It’s all about the taxes. Passing up a golden opportunity to get back on speaking terms with reality, Gibbons instead chose to hunker deeper in his bunker. "When I ran for governor of this great state, I promised Nevadans I would not raise taxes. Nevadans expect me to keep that promise, and I intend to do just that," Gibobns said. "We want you to compare. Remember [their] plan is $2 billion in tax increases. Our plan is zero tax increases, and it solves the problem."
  
• But here’s the thing about that: It’s not entirely clear that it will solve the problem, and it is guaranteed to create other problems as a result. Leave aside for a moment whether the pilfering of room tax money from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority — which could spike a proposed expansion of the agency’s convention center — will have an impact on tourism, and thus gambling and sales taxes. (It will, of course.) But Gibbons also proposes to take an estimated $360 million from the general fund in the form of sales and live entertainment taxes over the next eight years. How will that money be made up?
  
• And here’s another thing about that: While Democrats have discussed various ways of funding the gap, they haven’t settled on a final package, which means that $2 billion figure is made up. Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson said today that Democrats are running numbers on their own ideas, including some reallocations of their own, not to mention changing the depreciation schedule on cars, increasing truck registration fees and commercial drivers license fees, increasing (not reallocating) room tax, and allowing a temporary cut in the payroll tax to expire. "We’re running numbers today on all of this," Atkinson said. "We don’t want a hit to the general fund."
  
• We get some insights in this classic paragraph from the story: "Gibbons gave no indication where general fund spending would be trimmed, though no decision would be made until the 2009 legislative session." Ah, so that’s the answer: Rob Peter to pay Paul, and then figure out how to repay both Peter and Paul down the road. We could not think of a more excellent example of Republican economics if we tried!
  
• Gibbons’ own transportation director, Susan Martinovich, acknowledges what the experts have been saying all along: The backlog for essential projects is really $5 billion, not $3.8 billion. And some are saying it’s even higher than that. The bottom line: Gibbons’ tax shift may not be adequate, and if it’s not, where will he make up THAT deficit?
  
• Although Assembly Minority Leader Garn Mabey attended the news conference (our apologies for getting that one wrong on Thursday), he wasn’t too excited about the plan. "My hope is it will encourage the debate. Parts of it can be supported, parts of it won’t. Other people’s ideas will become part of it." Yes, let’s get other people’s ideas. Let’s see … oh, wait, everybody up there is a Republican!
  
• So, why aren’t the Democrats talking gas tax? Atkinson says it’s a combination of factors, including the instability of gas prices and the fact that those prices are often affected by factors outside the Legislature’s control. Moreover, he says, the tax is the least popular and most opposed among voters. (Remember the R-J’s poll?) And don’t forget the desire of lawmakers to live to legislate again.
  
• Us? We’re under no such restriction. Raising the gas tax (by indexing it to inflation) is fair, stable and completely connected to the service people get from paying it. Higher gas taxes might even discourage consumption, lowering revenues but also having positive environmental consequences, too.