Jon Ralston on the changing masks worn by GOP gubernatorial hopefuls

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 | 7:15 a.m.

So we are presented with the shocking news this week that all three Republican gubernatorial candidates were against the 2003 tax increase, the largest in state history.

And that's the past. As to the future: Read their lips. No tax increases on their watches, should they be granted the right to watch by the electorate later this year.

I would never suggest such posturing could sway the GOP faithful, who will choose their preferred candidate Aug. 15. But in the unlikely event some might be bamboozled that it's so simple, perhaps some nuance, facts and historical context need to be added to clarify the positions of Rep. Jim Gibbons, state Sen. Bob Beers and Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt.

Hearing that these three told a luncheon forum Monday that they would never repeat Gov. Kenny Guinn's billion-dollar baby, the most distorted and twisted legislative initiative that Carson City may ever have seen, brought back many memories - few of them fond.

Foremost among these Proustian visions is that beyond the governor's courage in proposing it and failure to see it through, and beyond the Legislature's unconscionable mangling of the original proposal into a patchwork of ill-advised taxes, lies the plain fact that none of the Republicans at the time ever came up with an alternative, while most supported hundreds of millions in new taxes.

The so-called Mean 15 or Fearless 15 - depending on your perspective, that was Beers and his Assembly GOP cohorts who blocked the increase for a time - argued about the amount of the tax increase because they were afraid to make the case that most of it was unnecessary. About three-quarters of what Guinn proposed was needed to cover roll-up costs in education and social services, something no Republican wanted to talk about.

By the time the Legislature finally ended - there were two special sessions - Beers was a folk hero of the right, Guinn was a traitor to his party and the state Supreme Court, which helped facilitate the legislation with a controversial and incendiary decision, was forever demonized.

Now, three years later, delivering to the GOP seals a reason to applaud, Hunt, Gibbons and Beers are giving them what they want, sans context or the full truth.

Hunt said at Monday's forum hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition that she fought hard against Guinn's gross receipts tax proposal, eventually shelved for that tax mishmash. But I do not recall her vocal opposition, and I can find no news stories talking about Hunt's fight against the governor during the session. I chalk that up to loyalty, though.

Hunt, however, also told the group that she "didn't particularly believe" that the state needed the tax increase back then. But back then she was quoted as saying, "What we did is not injurious; we haven't set up any bureaucratic mess we'd have to live with. ... We made the best of a challenging situation."

That was then, loyal Lt. Gov. Hunt; this is now, gubernatorial candidate Hunt.

As for Beers, he was not so much against the gross receipts tax as he was against the notion of a billion-dollar tax increase. But neither he nor his compadres ever produced an alternative or any serious list of budget cuts. Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick was supportive of a $600 million increase at one point, but Guinn's patronizing of Hettrick and others in that caucus locked them into opposition.

Beers compromised his anti-tax-and-spending bona fides last session when he voted for the largest budget in state annals, something he will have to justify at some point - probably when Gibbons puts up an ad attacking him for doing so.

As for Gibbons, he forever destroyed his relationship with Guinn when he went to Carson City and said the governor had not made the case for the tax increase and that he would have "to agree to disagree" with Guinn. He later said that now "is not the time to raise taxes," referring to the economic slowdown.

Like Hunt and Beers, Gibbons did not at the time present any alternative to what Guinn was proposing and how he would pay for the state's rising education and social service costs. Back then - as he did Monday - Gibbons went for the cheap applause line.

And something tells me that as the campaign goes on, neither he nor his two primary opponents will tell the full truth about what happened in 2003 because they would rather have that stay in 2003.