In the 2007 session, that dilemma has appeared in the person of state Sen. Bob Coffin.

For the past two days, Coffin has been railing against a transportation compromise outlined in Assembly Bill 595, which harnasses Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority bonds, a car rental tax and property taxes normally used for capital projects, to fix roads.

Where, Coffin has asked, is the trucking industry? (And, for that matter, although Coffin didn’t specifically ask, where is the general motoring public? Taxis? Limos?)

But his question is a good one anyway. Early proposals included the trucking industry in a weight-distance tax, or perhaps an increase in the diesel fuel tax. Thanks in large part to Gov. Jim Gibbons‘ opposition to any and all tax increases, however, those plans never came to pass. And that leaves the trucking industry laughing all the way to the bank.

Coffin, who most definitely is not laughing, has made a pest of himself on the issue, on the Senate floor and in committee meetings. And he finally got his chance to face off with Gibbons this morning in a hearing of the Senate Taxation Committee, where Gibbons had come to endorse AB 595.

Because of the governor’s no new taxes pledge, Coffin said, “we have in essence been handicapped.” He added: “It’s allowed everybody to flee.” Couldn’t Gibbons make an exception to his no-taxes pledge in order to solve the transportation problems in the state?

“I do appreciate your point of view,” replied Gibbons, who undoubtedly does not appreciate Coffin’s point of view. “Philosophically, we differ. I don’t believe we have to raise taxes every time we want to do something. I don’t believe we should raise taxes every time we need something.”

Besides, Gibbons said, taxes aren’t needed because negotiators have found enough revenue to fix roads within existing budgets, Gibbons said.

(Of course, that’s not true. AB 595 will raise about $1 billion, when the list of projects identified by former Gov. Kenny Guinn’s blue ribbon commission found the shortfall for critical projects was $3.8 million, an estimate that Gibbons’ own transportation department later increased to $5 billion. Not only that, sapping county revenues in the form of property taxes will leave a hole in county budgets. And because the state gave car rental companies the ability to raise other charges in exchange for their “contribution” of tax revenue, rental costs will rise. Gibbons simply doesn’t seem to understand the concept that when you take money from one budget and put it in another, you haven’t created new money; you’ve just shifted your deficit in a dishonest version of Three Card Monte.)

Perhaps recognizing this, Coffin immediately shot back: “You’ve just given me a campaign stump speech here.”

Of course, Gibbons said. He originally made his no-new-taxes pledge in his campaign. (It was the only real subject of his campaign, now that we think about it.) Plus, he added, raising the diesel fuel tax will just cause manufacturers to raise their prices to cover the additional costs of getting goods to the market.

At this point, state Sen. Maggie Carlton chimed in, complaining about the industries that simply walked away and refused to contribute to the solution. “It seems to me this policy of letting people leave the table, take their ball and go home,” will thwart arriving at a fair solution.

“In this case, we didn’t need to raise taxes,” Gibbons replied, again. “I hope you’ll still support the bill even though it doesn’t contain tax increases.” (Sure, it was a cheap shot, and no, Carlton didn’t reply that she’d consider supporting it despite the fact that it’s inadequate, unfair and unequal, largely because it doesn’t contain a tax increase.)

After a few others testified (including the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce’s lobbyist, Veronica Meter, who didn’t say what everybody knew, namely that her group supports the tax package since members escape unmolested), Coffin tried again. He asked Clark County lobbyist Mike Alastuey about the drain on county property taxes. Eventually, Republican committee member state Sen. Randolph Townsend had enough.

“This governor did not create this problem,” Townsend said. “So let’s don’t try to frame this in a manner that somehow he caused it this problem and only he can solve it.”

Finally, as the bill moved toward inevitable approval by the committee, Coffin tried a last-ditch effort to amend it to impose a 6-cent increase in the diesel fuel tax. “I think that they [the trucking industry] can afford it. I don’t think the world is going to come to an end,” Coffin said. “I think the governor has overstated the case that the world is going to come to an end for the consumers of Nevada if there’s an increase in the diesel fuel tax.”

The room went silent. There was no second, and the motion died. Ultimately, the bill was approved 4-2, with Coffin and state Sen. Mike Schneider voting no. (It’s slated to hit the Senate floor later today.)

Here’s the thing: Coffin is right. The trucking industry should be taxed more, and its outrageous they’re not part of the solution in AB 595. But then again, the general motoring public should pay more, too, in the form of raising or at least indexing the gasoline tax to inflation. Why? Because those are the people who use the roads, and thus they are the people who should pay for them.

Under AB 595, tourists, car renters and local governments pay the costs. (The property tax diversion is imposed without regard to how much a property owner drives on streets or highways, and to the extent that it takes away local governments’ ability to build or maintain public works like parks, its inappropriate.)

But here’s the reality we mentioned: A bill with a diesel fuel tax, a gas tax or an indexing provision would very likely not make it out of the Legislature, especially with the two-thirds requirement. Lawmakers fear the wrath of the voters who would have to pay more at the pump, and the voters are nothing if not greedy: They’d love for other people to pick up the costs of their roads.

And even if it did get out of the Legislature, it would face a certain veto from Gibbons, and an override is by no means certain.

So, is Coffin fighting a good fight, raising a lonely voice for a legitimate argument, or is he wasting time? The fact is, AB 595 is the best chance to at least do something about the transportation crisis at this point in the soon-to-end session. As its chief backer — Assembly Transportation Commission Chairman Kelvin Atkinson — has often said, it’s a good if imperfect first step.

But we get the sense that it’s not just Coffin who sees the problems of the bill, and knows in the end that, while Gibbons didn’t create the problem, he sure has put handcuffs on finding a real solution that fixes it not just now, but into the future.