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?