It seems the idea broached by Gov. Jim Gibbons in the Review-Journal Tuesday to reverse the state’s now-infamous 1981 tax shift has got legs; we saw it being debated by Las Vegas Gleaner blogger and CityLife columnist Hugh Jackson and conservative activist Chuck Muth on Face to Face with Jon Ralston on Tuesday.

If it seems a complex idea for Gibbons, rest assured, it’s not his own. Molly Ball’s story makes it clear state Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio and state Sen. Bob Beers are behind it. (Read the link above as Ball educates the governor as to the difference between a "caucus" and a "primary," as well as reports some truly odd remarks the governor made about the Monte Carlo fire and the potential for a car bomb in Elko.)

But let’s be honest: Shifting more property tax money to the state — rather than just relying on sales and gambling taxes to run the majority of the Nevada general fund — is an intriguing idea worth debating.

Let’s dispense, however, with this notion that no money from Clark County would be used to subsidize services in, say, Lander County. Once money goes into state coffers, its fungible, and nobody can truly say it’s going only for state services in Clark County. Moreover, some rural counties that already can’t make a go of things because of a tiny or insufficient property tax base are going to need even more help if this plan is applied statewide. So perhaps money from Clark County should go to help rural areas. We’re one Nevada, right, governor?

And, we may as well also dispense with the governor’s other remark: "I’m trying to be optimistic, hopefully, that a lot of the growth that we’re seeing in the commercial sector, especially down here in Las Vegas, is going to mitigate the bottom of this bathtub in terms of the economy." Apparently, the governor is now just stringing random words together. "Perhaps we need to explore the refrigerator and option our resources to water heater our economy, given the solar panel that’s dropped into our laps with respect to the interest rates and floor tile foreclosures," the governor said later. (Not really. Italics is our way of creating a dream sequence.)

But we find ourselves saying — and not for the first time — that we agree with Jackson: Shifting property taxes to the state would not solve any problem (it may, in fact, create more serious ones). All this would do is give state government a bit more stability while robbing the same from local governments.

What really needs to happen here are two things: First, we really do need a harsh top-to-bottom review of state spending, so as to curtail unnecessary programs. Former Gov. Kenny Guinn did this in his first term, but things are even more serious now. A panel looking at these things would ask itself, for example, if each expenditure in the state is more or less important than helping people with traumatic brain injuries or children with autism, two groups callously cut by Gibbons proposed cuts. If no, toss it.

But, second, no matter how much cutting is done, only the ignorant or the philosophically impaired would argue there is no need for new (and more stable) revenue. That’s something Gibbons will never give in on, and so we need people who are willing to directly challenge him on that point, which will take courage. The anti-tax argument is always easier, simpler and more accessible, at least until you think about it for more than 10 seconds.

Shift revenues? It may ultimately make sense. But only as part of a broader package outlined above. Is anybody ready to do that?

First off, let us say that yes, we are distantly related somehow to the governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, who delivered the Democratic response to President George W. Bush’s final State of the Union speech. We’re not sure exactly how. But we want to make it clear that we did not write her remarks or coach her on the delivery. If we had, she would have said some things more along these lines:

¶ Noting that some people say they want to pay more in taxes, the president joked, "I’m pleased to announce the IRS accepts both checks and money orders." Ha! The president is so funny! He should totally be a stand-up comedian when his turn as the Worst President in History comes to an end next year.

The thing is, behind that joke is a twisted philosophy: Only suckers want to support the common good. The rest of us are just trying to grab as much as we can. It tells us a lot about this president, his supporters and his policies.

¶ "American families have to balance their budgets. So should their government," Bush said. Ah, yes, the old, "run the government like the family budget" line. But whose family decides to go to war based on entirely false pretenses, and then puts the whole damn thing on the credit card? Whose family runs better when its overall income is reduced (i.e., the tax cuts that Bush wants to be made permanent)? And whose family gives a higher allowance to its college-educated kids who have high-paying jobs (tax credits to big companies) while cutting the allowance for little Johnny, who has trouble working because of his asthma?

Sorry, Mr. President, but that’s a pretty fucked-up family, if you ask us. Plus, this president hasn’t submitted a balanced budget yet.

¶ We need scholarships for kids to attend faith-based and other non-public schools. You know, because public schools are failing. There are a lot of reasons that public schools don’t do better, but cutting their budgets (sound familiar?), reducing their enrollment (which further reduces the funds they get) and underpaying their teachers is sure as hell not the way to start fixing things. And subsidizing religious education is most definitely not the role of constitutional government.

¶ We’ve got to invest in coal power that captures carbon emissions, the president said. That’s a little like saying we’ve got to invest in dilithium crystals to run our warp engines, since the coal industry itself says so-called "clean coal" technology that captures all emissions doesn’t exist yet, and will be expensive to obtain. Luckily, the president had another alternative: Emission-free nuclear power. And yes, nuke power is emission free, until there’s an accident. Then the "emissions" make CO2 look like Mike & Ike’s.

¶ Let’s fund research into using adult skin cells as stem cells (instead of using the abundant stem cells that we already have that are only going to be discarded anyway). That’s the equivalent of saying we shouldn’t use the metal ladder in the garage to stand on while we paint the living room ceiling. Instead, we should take wood shop classes, build a brand-new wooden ladder, and use that to stand on. Meanwhile, the living room ceiling goes unpainted and people are dying of terrible diseases!

¶ Bush did back off his call to privatize Social Security the way he still wants to privatize education. Now, he wants Congress to provide its solution. But if that solution is to eliminate the ceiling on wage taxes for Social Security, he’ll veto the bill. So, we suppose he doesn’t really want to hear all the solutions to fixing Social Security. Ass.

¶ Terrorists "hate every principle of liberty that we hold dear," Bush said. Well, c’mon, now, Mr. President! We do have some things in common with terrorists. For example, torture. They like to torture people almost as much as the people who torture on behalf of the United States. And kidnapping. They do it, we do it. Starting conflicts that kill innocent bystanders. That’s another one. And since we’re on the good side of the "defining intellectual struggle of our time," torture, kidnapping, and collateral damage must be "principles of liberty," no?

¶ If we don’t pass the bill that allows the government to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant and legally forgive private sector companies that violated Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights, the terrorists will win. Whatever. The deadline is Friday, by the way. Here’s hoping Congress blows it.

¶ America opposes the genocide in the Sudan, Bush said. And that’ all he said. One line. Sure, we oppose it. But not enough that we’ll, say, stop it. And why would we? Is there oil there? Is Israel nearby? Did the president try to kill George H.W. Bush? Are white people suffering? No? Well, we’ll give it a line in a speech and move on.

¶ Oh, by the way, the best line in Gov. Sebelius’ response was this: "We’re tired of leaders who rather than ask what we can do for our country, ask nothing at all." It’s good talking! But it’s not true, as comedian Bill Maher pointed out long ago: The government is asking for something from us. It’s asking us to surrender our civil rights, our powers of reason and our ability to decide what should happen in our country, free from fear. It’s asking for a hell of a lot. And it’s counting on us not to notice, since we’ve got a seemingly endless supply of beer, cable TV, delivery pizza and movies they mail right to your house!

Sadly, they’ve probably made a pretty good calculation.