HANCOCK BACKERS: PROPOSAL ONLY CUTS GOVERNMENT GROWTH

Supporters of Amendment 7 are encouraging voters to read the measure before deciding it is an evil proposal that will devastate state government, as opponents argue.

"I have read it. I am not a lawyer but it appears to be very straightforward to me," said Julia Kridelbaugh of Cape Girardeau, who said she views the amendment from a grass-roots taxpayer perspective. "I encourage people to just read it, and then speak out."

Jim McClellan, a Sikeston attorney who also supports the proposal, said it is nothing more than a plan to restrain the growth of government.

"To me, it is not that complicated," he said. "It is reasonable and sensible."

"It simply comes down to who do you trust: The taxpaying voters or the tax-and-spend politicians in power," he said. "I would rather trust myself on tax increases."

Opponents of Amendment 7 have warned it is poorly written and will usher in catastrophic consequences. They also say Amendment 7 goes far beyond simply giving citizens the right to vote on tax increases.

But McClellan, who supported the first Hancock Amendment, said warnings that government would grind to a halt as a result of that proposal proved to be untrue.

McClellan compared the original Hancock amendment line-by-line with Hancock II and wasn't confused or concerned.

"Hancock II more clearly defines what total state revenue is and gives more power to voters to vote on tax increases," he said.

Kridelbaugh admits Amendment 7 is a "radical, dramatic change." But it is a change that is needed to bring government under control.

She said people are tired of their money going away in taxes with no control.

Kridelbaugh isn't phased by warnings about massive budget cuts and claims that the amendment is so unclear it will be subject to myriad legal challenges.

"It is not a matter of who loses what, but a matter of what will be cut," she observed. "It is a matter of putting the brakes on and forcing state government to provide accountability."

Kridelbaugh is content to let authorities work out the legal issues once the measure passes.

Both Kridelbaugh and McClellan are upset by opponents of Amendment 7, and contend they are using scare tactics to sway voters.

They also are irate that state agencies are using tax dollars to oppose Amendment 7 -- in violation of Missouri law, McClellan said.

"The most important things about Amendment 7 are lost in hysteria and exaggeration," Kridelbaugh added.

Those good points include a requirement that tax increases be voted on by the people and that full state funding be provided to pay for any local mandates.

Both refer to the Cato Institute study released last week that said state budget cuts would be only $135 million -- not the $1 billion to $6 billion predicted by opponents -- as an example of its limited impact.

McClellan said the Cato group hasn't a vested interest in Amendment 7, unlike Jim Moody, who conducted a well-publicized study on behalf of opponents that determined the impact would be around $1 billion.

McClellan said Moody is a lobbyist who makes money representing clients that receive state money.

He said Moody is wrong stating that $500 million in cuts would have to be made this fiscal year, because the amendment specifically states that it won't take effect until fiscal year 1996.

That means that Moody's worst-case scenario should show $500 million in cuts, which is in the range of the $135 million in cuts cited in the Cato report.

"Before they write their next budget, if they determine they will exceed the limit on the cap, all they have to do is come back to voters and ask for additional revenue," McClellan said. "It is not all that complicated."

Another factor with Amendment 7 is that reducing growth in government will put more money in the pockets of Missourians to spend, which helps the economy grow and the tax base to expand, he noted.

Kridelbaugh is part of a group known as Southeast Missouri Citizens Against Government Waste that represents taxpayers who want the amendment passed.