AMENDMENT 4: SAFEGUARD OR PLACEBO?; VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY EMBRACE TAX LIMITS

Ask any political observer in Missouri and elsewhere about the mood of voters today and they'll likely speak of a strong, anti-tax sentiment.

It isn't surprising, then, that Missouri voters this week approved a constitutional amendment aimed at giving them more say on future tax increases.

Amendment 4 requires voter approval of any tax or fee increase greater than $50 million or 1 percent of total state revenue.

But will the amendment really shield taxpayers from unwanted taxes? The measure's star proponent -- Gov. Mel Carnahan -- says it's what voters want and need to keep a lid on taxes and government growth.

"I think it's reasonable," said the governor's spokesman, Chris Sifford. "It gives people a say in terms of tax limitation, but it also will allow the legislature to do its work. I think it strikes a pretty good balance."

Sifford said the voters' overwhelming approval of Amendment 4 bears out the governor's contention that the measure is sound public policy.

But others aren't so sure. Among those who voted for Amendment 4 are some leery skeptics.

"I think it's a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure it goes far enough," said Rep. Mary Kasten.

The Cape Girardeau Republican voted for Amendment 4, and she hopes it will enable the Missouri Legislature to more diligently ward off the heavy yoke of taxation.

Many people credit 1993's Senate Bill 380, which Gov. Carnahan has called his "proudest achievement," for birthing a crusade to throttle government's ability to raise taxes.

The Legislature approved the Carnahan-championed bill, which raised some $310 million in new income and corporate taxes annually. The governor responded to critics of the tax increase by joining forces with Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce -- traditionally conservative groups -- in backing Amendment 4.

Another conservative, Rep. David Schwab of Jackson, supported Amendment 4. "I'm glad it passed," Schwab said. "This is one way to slow the growth of government. I think the $50 million or 1 percent, whichever is lower, is a pretty good safeguard."

But Kasten finds Carnahan's cheerleading of a tax-limitation measure ironic.

"It looks to me like the governor's way of saying, 'pass this amendment so I won't raise your taxes again,'" Kasten said. "But this amendment probably wouldn't have even been needed if it weren't for Senate Bill 380."

Sen. Peter Kinder of Cape Girardeau also voted for Amendment 4, although his support for the measure was lukewarm.

The Republican said Amendment 4 would have been strengthened by a series of GOP amendments that were defeated along mostly party lines.

"It's probably the best we could get from a Democratically controlled legislature and a Democratic governor," Kinder said. "We're going to have to see how it works."

The amendment's first test might come soon. The Missouri Supreme Court last week threw out the state's local use tax, levied against out-of-state companies selling products in Missouri.

As a result, the Legislature likely will draft a new use-tax proposal that, because of Amendment 4, will have to be submitted to Missouri voters, Sifford said.

Even so, there are those who believe Amendment 4 is little more than a placebo, an inert law prescribed to pacify cranky taxpayers. Leading the charge is Carnahan's arch-nemesis, U.S. Rep. Mel Hancock, R-Mo.

Like water and oil, Hancock's and Carnahan's politics have never mixed.

The Springfield Republican is an unabashed conservative. He is one of only 31 House members recently to receive a perfect 100 score from the American Conservative Union on 23 key votes last year. Since 1989, his ACU rating has averaged 99.

After SB 380's record tax increase, Carnahan was stuck with the "tax-and-spend liberal" label. He rejects the moniker, but there is little question his views are on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Hancock's.

"I think the number one issue we've got now is the battle between me and Mel Carnahan," Hancock said from his home office in Springfield. "He promised during the 1992 campaign to put any tax increase on the ballot, then in 1993, he pushes through the largest tax increase in history without a vote."

But the governor sees the feud with Hancock has mostly one-sided, Sifford said.

"Congressman Hancock's ideas have been consistently rejected by the people of Missouri, whether it was Hancock II or his opposition to Amendment 4," he said.

But Hancock said if Carnahan is sincere about giving voters the right to vote on tax increases, he should put the $310 million tax hike from SB 380 on the ballot in November.

"The fact is, he doesn't believe in the people's right to vote on taxes," Hancock added. "His support of Amendment 4 is strictly politics."

Sifford said SB 380 was needed to stave off a federal court ruling on the state's underfunded foundation formula from which Missouri's public school districts get their state funding.

"We could do something about it or face a situation in which the courts would be running our schools," Sifford said.

He said Carnahan didn't want Missouri schools to suffer the same boondoggle that sprang from court-ordered desegregation in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Whether Amendment 4 placates taxpayers remains to be seen. Ron Calzone, a Dixon businessman, last month wrote letters to several newspapers in the state questioning whether there was a better way to curb government's reach. At the time, Calzone didn't know how he would vote on the measure.

"I ended up voting against it," he said this week. "I think it's a smokescreen."

Calzone said it isn't enough simply to restrict the Legislature's ability to raise taxes. Something must be done to limit the overall size of state government.

That was the spirit of the original Hancock Amendment, passed by voters in 1980. The amendment requires that state revenues grow no faster than Missourians' incomes. It also stipulates that tax and fee increases exceeding a revenue ratio be approved by a popular vote.

The problem, Calzone says -- and he agrees with Congressman Hancock on this -- is that the legislature and courts have precluded the spirit of the amendment by redefining what is and isn't "state revenue."

In 1982, for example, overall state revenue stood at $2.5 billion. The amount of revenue then subject to Hancock Amendment provisions was about $2.4 billion.

But by 1995, total revenue was at a record $12.3 billion while the amount subject to Hancock was only about $6.4 billion.

"Some tax increases have been squeezed by the people because the courts haven't included them in that overall revenue calculation," Calzone said. "My biggest concern about Amendment 4 is that it's a placebo."

Even through he voted against it, Calzone said he hopes Amendment 4 helps keep a handle on large tax increases.

Even Hancock thinks Amendment 4 can work, although his confidence is tainted with cynicism.

"For the next couple years anyway -- with what they've done with Senate Bill 380 -- they shouldn't need to raise any taxes," Hancock said. "They have more money then they know what to do with."