While we wait to see how the politics play out, it's gratifying for voters to see two Republican candidates for governor battle over who can be the most fiscally conservative.
If all the talk turns into action, then Nevada residents may be well-served. At this point, though, what we really want is a healthy debate over the merits of setting strict spending limits on state and local governments.
Doing the jousting are state Sen. Bob Beers, whose Tax and Spending Control proposal is the centerpiece of his gubernatorial campaign, and Jim Gibbons, who was responsible for the two-thirds taxation requirement in the Legislature now.
Gibbons said the other day that he doesn't agree with Beers' initiative, and Beers immediately jumped on him for taking two months to respond and for not offering some alternatives.
We don't agree with parts of Beers' initiative either. Other parts we like. And, as we've said before, that's the biggest problem with setting in stone a tax-and-spend limit on state and local governments: We've yet to see one that covers all contingencies, yet accomplishes what it seeks to do.
Can such legislation be written? Should it be an amendment to the Constitution? How much control should the state have over local-government spending?
Gibbons and Beers both have the best interests of Nevada taxpayers at heart, we believe, and we would welcome lively debate - along with Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt, who has some ideas of her own - on tax-and-spend controls. Maybe not the 17 debates Beers has trumpeted, but voters would like to hear this issue dissected.
It's not the only issue along the campaign trail toward a Republican primary, but it might be the most important.