LETTERS: FORMERLY SYMPATHETIC, NOW OPPOSED TO HANCOCK II

To the editor:

We have watched and listened as the public debate on Amendment 7, also known as Hancock II, has intensified. As conservatives distressed by the recent back-door tax increases engineered by Gov. Carnahan and the legislature, we were initially sympathetic to Hancock II. Upon closer study, however, we have found ample reason to oppose the amendment. Hancock II is simply too flawed to warrant our support.

An analysis of the amendment has been made by James R. Moody, former commissioner of administration (1989-1993) and state budget director (1987-1988) under former conservative Republican Gov. Ashcroft. According to the Moody report, Hancock II does much more than require a popular vote for any tax increases. Hancock II redefines total state revenue increases since 1980 -- including those approved by voters -- for the purpose of requiring tax refunds. Tax refunds of over $500 million in fiscal 1995 and $500 million in fiscal 1996 would be required by the amendment, with refunds for both years likely to be paid in fiscal 1996.

On the surface, tax refunds may appear quite attractive to disgruntled or distrustful voters. However, tax refunds come at a cost: according to the Moody report the Department of Corrections budget will be cut by $55 million; $100 million will be cut from social services; #31 million will be cut from mental health programs; highway construction will lose $130 million; $284 million will be cut from elementary and secondary education; and $177 million will be cut from highest education. These sums represent roughly 30% of the budgets for these programs. Additional programs subject to reduction include economic development, natural resources, agriculture, public safety, and public health.

Consider the impact on Southeast Missouri And Cape Girardeau. If passed, Hancock II could lead to numerous layoffs at Southeast Missouri State University and the public schools. Many of these people will leave the region for better opportunities elsewhere, resulting in lost revenues for local businesses. In addition, the university will be forced to dramatically increase tuition, possibly as much as $20 to $30 per credit hour. Realistically, increased fees will cause student enrollment to decrease, thereby further reducing economic activity in the area. The university will also likely be forced to reduce the number of degree programs offered, forcing some students to travel far from our region to get the education they need to embark upon their chosen careers. The quality of public education will deteriorate as class sizes increase and each pupil receives less individual attention in the classroom. Athletic programs at regional high schools may be eliminated or reduced due to lack of funds. The new Mississippi River bridge in Cape Girardeau and the highway linking it to I-55 will probably be put on hold, perhaps indefinitely. Roads in the region will suffer from lack of maintenance. Criminals, freed from prison early because of lack of space, will reduce the quality of life for all. The list could go on and on.

As disruptive as Hancock II could be to our region and the entire state, we find an even more compelling reason to oppose the amendment: Hancock II does not solve the real and serious revenue problems confronting Missouri. Citizens are angry because far too many tax dollars are being spent on entitlements and Federally-mandated programs that exist -- and thrive -- beyond the control of the people. Hancock II can't touch those programs, which make up the bulk of the State budget! Even if Hancock II passes, the protected programs will continue to swallow up dollars that once went to many of the very programs that Hancock II will eviscerate. We therefore propose that the people of Missouri go Hancock II one better and seek ways to regain control of the entire budget, including entitlements and mandates. Only when EVERY state expenditure is on the table for review will the people of Missouri truly regain control of their fiscal destiny.

The real issue is freedom: the citizens of Missouri should be free to decide whether they want their tax dollars to pay for first-rate universities or desegregation, good roads or transfer payments. As Hancock II now stands, it tends to cut the programs that can help the State succeed in the 21st century, while protecting and perpetuating programs that do little to help the people of Missouri, now or in the future. As conservative Republican voters, we demand a better deal! We will vote NO on Hancock II this November, and YES on any amendment that gives us control over ALL of our tax dollars.

P.W. CRAWFORD

M.L. RODGERS

Cape Girardeau