LEGISLATOR TIRED OF BOTH MELS

A Southeast Missouri legislator says he is getting tired of the Mel's in his political life, who are firing charges and counter charges about Amendment 7.

The two Mel's referred to by State Rep. Mark Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff, are Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan and U.S. Rep. Mel Hancock, R-Springfield.

"Shame on Mel Carnahan for saying the sky is falling and shame on Mel Hancock for pursuing a personal agenda. Shame on both of them," said Richardson.

Others have drawn the same conclusion that the Amendment 7 issue is fueled too much by Hancock's anger with Carnahan.

Dr. Bob Briner, director of the SEMO Regional Crime Lab, came away from a Leadership Missouri forum last weekend convinced of that.

The session in Columbia included a debate between Hancock and Jim Moody, former state budget director and commissioner of administration under former Gov. John Ashcroft, who has prepared a report stating the minimum impact of Amendment 7 would be immediate cuts of around $1 billion.

"It was pretty scary," said Briner of the potential impact. "It is just a fight between Hancock and Carnahan and the whole state will be put in a bind. A lot of people are going to get hurt over a fight between two individuals."

Carnahan is fiercely opposed to Amendment 7, placed on the Nov. 8 ballot by petitions gathered by supporters of Hancock. He claims it would force budget cuts of up to 40 percent from many state agencies and would devastate essential state programs.

But Hancock, who successfully pushed through an initiative in 1980 limiting growth in state government, said he is fed up with people like Carnahan who have taken every opportunity to circumvent the amendment named for him.

In 1993 Carnahan pushed through the General Assembly Senate Bill 380, a bill that included some education reforms, re-wrote the school foundation formula, and enacted a $315 million tax increase without a vote of the people.

Carnahan argued the funds were needed to comply with a circuit court order that the foundation formula be made more equitable. But Hancock viewed it as the ultimate assault on his amendment, and Hancock II was launched in retaliation.

In the battle of the Mel's, Richardson said the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

He complained that Carnahan did not trust people enough in 1993 to let them vote on taxes in SB-380, and is opposed to Amendment 7 because he does not trust people to make appropriate decisions about what state services they want.

On the other hand, Richardson said Hancock has fumbled a golden opportunity to give Missouri voters an opportunity many want: the right to vote on major tax increases.

In his urgency to retaliate against Carnahan for SB-380, Richardson said Hancock has had an amendment drafted that is complicated and full of loopholes that will be subject to legal challenges. Those loopholes make the ultimate impact of Amendment 7 almost impossible to assess.

Many voters, who would like a say in large tax increases, are now torn between that desire and fears about the impact of large cuts in state programs.

Richardson, who is not opposed for a third term as state representative this year, has spent the fall trying to explain the shortcomings of positions expressed by both sides.

He is undecided how he will vote personally, but noted, "The issue is a great trail ride, but we may be on the wrong horse.

"I am skeptical of the amendment, but outraged and insulted by the Draconian, terrifying tactics being used to promote the potential dark side of Hancock II, without fairly depicting what the realistic results of it might be," Richardson said.

Moody, who is a paid consultant for the committee opposing Amendment 7, charged that Hancock is not being straight with the public and is irresponsible.

"He lights the fire and gets it burning significantly, and then Mel says if the voters don't put the fire out it's not my fault," said Moody.

He explained that the amendment does nothing about the state taxes in SB-380.

"He is just using SB-380 as they ploy here," said Moody.

If Hancock were sincerely upset about those taxes, Moody said a more logical procedure would have been a referendum on 380 taxes that would provide a statewide vote.

Moody said Hancock is using concern about SB-380 taxes from voters to help his cause, when his real anger is focused on a Missouri Supreme Court decision nine years ago that the one-cent sales tax for education in Proposition C did not count in the revenue limit of Hancock I.