Such is the dilemma that will confront state legislators early next year, as they will face a populace wondering when the 2007 rebate checks will arrive. Will these elective parents patronize their children, who were spoiled by the rebate checks after the 2005 session, minuscule though they were? Or will they start telling some hard truths about the state's needs, thus withholding the financial candy and instead forcing their constituents to swallow some castor oil?

The pathetic debate last year over the rebate comes to mind as a state surplus already is projected to be about $600 million and is likely to grow larger by early next year. The 2005 debate went something like this:

Gov. Kenny Guinn: You must give a rebate, and I am shamelessly stealing the idea from state Sen. Bob Beers.

Gang of 63: Hell, no.

Guinn: I will veto the budget if you don't give a rebate.

Gang of 63: On second thought ...

Then, after a ludicrous debate over whether the low end should be as low as a $1 rebate and whether the high end should be as high as $300, these Solomonic leaders decided on a low of $75 and a high of $275. Some Reese's Pieces for the masses.

So now what? Once they have set the precedent, what do lawmakers and the next governor do?

This question is especially salient as the state's infrastructure needs continue to grow — a blue-ribbon panel found the transportation system especially falling behind, perhaps near $4 billion in 10 years. Lawmakers also are handcuffed because, despite what some people (and some legislators) may know, there already is a form of Tax and Spending Control on the books that will limit what the state can spend in the current fiscal year. (One difference from Beers' constitutional proposal is that the statutory limit can be overridden by a majority vote, albeit with some political peril attached.)

For business folks out there who look to the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce for leadership on such issues “ you know, the kind of leadership that produced about 700 tax positions during the '03 session “ you might actually have a leader to look up to.

Steve Hill, who is the chamber's government affairs chair, said this week during an interview on Las Vegas One, "I don't think we would be in favor, at this point, of a rebate. The state has very many pressing needs. We have transportation shortfalls, we have education needs that we need to look at. There are a variety of needs that we have and we'll be looking at these in the next session."

Some business folks will be upset to read that, but it's hard to argue with Hill's logic, a word not often associated with the chamber. And the lesson there “ one that will be preached by others with a long-range view in the coming months but could be rejected by a Gov. Jim Gibbons and some lawmakers “ is one that every parent must administer sooner or later:

Instant gratification, whether it's candy or a rebate, may taste or feel good at the time. But as it rots your teeth or your state's long-term health, you might want to consider a diet, whether it's giving up sweets or pandering to your constituents.