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?