Lansing Republicans want to sell pension bonds to fix our crappy roads. That's basically the same kind of bad decision-making that landed Detroit in bankruptcy.

But here they are again, not just kicking the can down the road to avoid raising taxes, but asking Michiganders to roll the dice with the state's future financial stability.

What? Why?

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat who campaigned on fixing the damn roads, wants to raise the gas tax 45 cents per gallon. No one really wants to pay more for gas (probably not even Whitmer), but there's not a lot of extra money in Michigan's state budget, and our roads are in pretty bad shape. Whitmer says we need $2.5 billion a year, a number drawn from a report commissioned by her predecessor, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. The governor has said she will listen to any alternate plan that nets the same amount.

Which brings us to Michigan's GOP legislative leaders, House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake. Shirkey and Chatfield say a 45-cent gas hike is not a thing.

Raising taxes is generally a non-starter for Republicans, but both men signaled earlier this year that they'd be open to some kind of tax increase ... but that may have changed.

More:Gov. Gretchen Whitmer makes another push for 45-cent gas tax hike

What are they saying now?

Legislative Republicans have propose eliminating the sales tax on gas and replacing it with a gas tax. I know, don't ask.

Shirkey, at least, has embraced a plan devised by the conservative West Michigan Policy Forum that involves borrowing money to pay for Michigan teacher pensions.

It's boring and complicated, but important to understand if you want to appreciate why this is such a bad idea. Each year, the state spends more than $2 billion to pay for teacher pensions. The system has what's called "unfunded liabilities," which means it has to pay out more than it currently has in assets. But instead of making those annual payments, suggests the West Michigan Policy Forum (for "west Michigan," read "a DeVos pet project"), the state should borrow $10 billion, invest that money at a stable rate of return, and use the proceeds to pay for a portion of teacher pensions and to repay the debt.

All of that, the policy group says, would create a domino effect: about $980 million in school tax dollars currently spent on teacher pensions could be spent on education, and lawmakers would be able to move those tax dollars around to help fund roads.

Simple, right?

More:As Whitmer makes case for higher gas taxes, remember what cuts did to Michigan

What could possibly go wrong?

Former Republican state House Speaker Jase Bolger, who works with the West Michigan group, says a 4% return on investment would met the group's goals. And if everything went exactly according to plan, it might work — if the market is stable, if the state continued to make the remainder of its pension payments promptly, if the state's budget didn't crash, if there's no recession or economic contraction, if nothing, in general, went wrong.

It's a lot of ifs.

It's true that places like Oakland County have been successful in selling bonds to cover unfunded retirement benefit costs. But Oakland County is super stable, and can more easily absorb financial fluctuations.

In Detroit, the same maneuver didn't go so well. Back in 2005, Detroit sold pension bonds to cover its unfunded liabilities. The city also entered into some risky credit swaps, all based around the same idea that a high return on investment would cover a pension deficit and repay the debt. But the market tanked, and those swaps became financially disastrous, playing a key role in the city's 2013 bankruptcy filing.

What do the experts say?

Anderson Economic Group founder and CEO Patrick Anderson, a former state deputy budget director under Gov. John Engler, told the Detroit News that it's "a really dumb idea."

There's no free money, Anderson said, and debts always have to be repaid. Proponents of this plan, he told the News, are "telling yourself the happy tale that you are somehow going to make more money on the money that you should have paid back than you’re eventually going to have to repay to the people you’re now deeply indebted yourself to.”

Matt Fabian,a partner at Municipal Market Analytics, told government finance trade publication Bond Buyer that he's neg on this plan: "Pension bonds undertaken to do things not related to pensions are the worst kind of pension bonds in that they are being deployed almost purely as a budget gimmick, adding leverage and risk to a government’s budget in exchange for a few years’ relief from tax hikes or spending cuts."

Fabian also suggested that an interest in selling pension bonds for this purpose suggested some unpleasant things about the state's financial outlook: that there could be problems with Michigan's financial flexibility, and future credit outlook — in other words, a financially healthy state shouldn't consider such a convoluted financial transaction.

Some bond attorneys have suggested that it would be more straightforward to simply borrow money to fix the roads — it's cheap to borrow right now, and Michigan has a good credit rating. A smaller gas-tax increase could provide a revenue stream to re-pay that debt.

More:Whitmer shakes up 'Michigan Dashboard' to reflect her priorities for Michigan

So what's really going on?

I don't like to speculate. OK, I do. It's worth noting that conservatives have marveled at what an un-conservative financial proposal this is. So it's not unreasonable to look at this proposal, and particularly its genesis in the neg-on-pensions, neg-on-unions west Michigan group and wonder if the point isn't about funding, and more about ideology — to wonder whether the point is for a group of small-government conservatives to propose a plan that won't work, so that government doesn't work.

Yikes.

Nancy Kaffer is a Free Press columnist. Contact: nkaffer@freepress.com.