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.