We found this story from today’s Las Vegas Sun very interesting, and not just because it reveals that MGM Mirage was the lone sticking point in discussing a potential increase in the gross gambling tax with the Nevada State Education Association. (When MGM Mirage Chairman Terry Lanni says he wants to discuss reforming the state’s entire tax policy, we suppose that comes with a footnote: Except for us, that is! We’re maxed out!)

No, what struck us was the fact that the teachers union seemed to be negotiating with casino companies before filing its initiative in the first place. A person could look at that in two ways:

Way No. 1: The union was trying to extort casinos. Either they come to the table with higher taxes, or we’ll put higher taxes before voters and into the constitution, where we know it will pass.

Way No. 2: The union was trying a last-ditch effort to get cooperation from casinos. We don’t want to circulate a petition, and wait until 2011 to see this money. We want to see it now. Can we work something out?

(Our view: It was probably a little of both.)

And, also tellingly, casinos seemed to be willing to talk, including Station, Boyd and Harrah’s. But MGM Mirage, owner of some of the nicest places on the Strip, including the Mandalay Bay and Bellagio, was the only one to say no.

"Everyone we met with agreed we had a problem with education funding. No one has been able to provide an alternative," said Lynn Warne, president of the NSEA.

Actually, that’s not technically true: Lanni (and before him, others like ex-Mandalay Bay Vice President Mike Sloan and Nevada Resort Association President Bill Bible) have suggested an alternative. They want a broad-based business tax levied on the gross receipts of banks, homebuilders, car dealers, retail stores and other businesses, which pay nothing now.

Here’s the problem: That alternative won’t fly. First, you’d have to get two-thirds of the Legislature to agree, and those votes unfortunately aren’t there. Second, you’d have to get past a gubernatorial veto, which would surely come. And third, a tax like that in law could be altered by the Legislature at any time, and wouldn’t be as stable a funding source as a guaranteed constitutional income stream. It’s what Harrah’s Vice President Jan Jones meant when she said, "Speaking as a concerned Nevadan, we also have to address the political reality."

We’re sure the teachers union wouldn’t mind where the money came from. If a gross receipts tax could be passed, educators wouldn’t reject the higher salaries, and they probably recognize the inherent fairness of that approach. But they also know that, on the ballot, a casino tax is a lot more popular than a business tax.

Meanwhile, we understand the casino industry’s reluctance to be singled out again and again, because that only invites more people to propose more taxes. It happened in 2003: Casinos offered up a 0.5 percent increase in the top tier of the gross gambling tax, so long as it was part of a package with the business types to come under a gross receipts tax. Business escaped, but casinos didn’t.

Thus, the MGM hard stance.

We’ve long favored a gross receipts tax, and we think it would have been better if the teachers had somehow been able to include that. By the same token, however, we see no practical way that could have been done under the state’s current leadership. You can’t blame either side, really. As one teachers union rep said: "It’s a fucked situation."

That’s one thing we can all agree on.