LEGISLATORS, BUSINESSMEN SAY TAX HIKE MAY FACE ROUGH ROAD

CAPE GIRARDEAU -- Southeast Missouri lawmakers say more money is needed for all facets of education, but a $494 million tax-hike-for-education proposal could face rough going with both the General Assembly and the general public.

In fact, several lawmakers said Saturday that support from Gov. John Ashcroft is crucial if such a tax hike is to be placed before the voters.

"I don't believe we can do it without the governor," said State Rep. Ollie Amick (D-Scott City).

Lawmakers said the governor has previously opposed tax hikes.

The governor has not yet indicated whether he would support the bill. But State Rep. Joe Driskill (D-Doniphan) said that members of the governor's staff have privately hinted that the governor has "ruled out" a tax increase at this time.

Ashcroft has said he won't support increased funding without educational reform.

Without the governor's support, Driskill said, "I think the chances of the proposal passing the legislature are really low."

Added Driskill, "Opinion polls continue to indicate that folks are against taxes."

He said a survey of his constituents last year revealed that "people would rather see state services cut than pay more taxes."

The Missouri Farm Bureau announced support Friday for increased funding and reform of state elementary, secondary and higher education programs.

But a statewide business organization, Associated Industries of Missouri, has come out against the tax proposal, saying the bill doesn't guarantee that the extra money will be spent where it is needed.

And Bob Hendrix, president of the Cape Girardeau Chamber of Commerce, said Saturday that the tax measure comes at a bad time for Missouri businesses.

"Today, business and industry are looking for survival," said Hendrix, pointing to the economic recession which has hit the nation.

"I haven't seen any great clamoring from any business for any new tax," he added.

"There is a need for money for education," Hendrix acknowledged. "I don't think anybody disputes that. The question is who is going to pay for it and when."

Added Hendrix, "People are getting tired of throwing money at a problem without seeing results. That's what I am hearing being said."

Senate President Pro Tem James Mathewson filed legislation Thursday, proposing what would apparently be the largest tax increase in state history.

Mathewson calls for raising the revenue through a variety of tax measures. The money would be spent on higher education, public schools and economic development.

The legislation calls for additional spending of $292 million for higher education and $172 million for elementary and secondary education.

The measure would need to be approved by Missouri voters before it could be implemented. Mathewson said Thursday he hopes to see such a measure put before the voters in November.

The legislation ties increased funding to reforms in education, some of which have been proposed by the statewide Business and Education Partnership Commission.

Comprised essentially of legislators and businessmen from the St. Louis and Kansas City areas, the commission has called for a $300 million tax hike for higher education.

Mathewson has proposed putting the increased revenues in trust funds until reform goals are met.

Curt Long, president of Associated Industries of Missouri (AIM), argued that the state should first deal with funding for elementary and secondary schools before tackling the problems of higher education.

"The senator's measure, of course, is based only on the amount of money that is spent on education. If this is an accurate measuring tool, then we could proclaim that the highway that cost the most to build, the product that cost the most to produce and the service that cost the most to deliver were all the very best," Long said in a recent AIM newsletter.

"Associated Industries of Missouri agrees with Sen. Mathewson that we must improve the performance of our educational system, but we must not restrict our improvements to simply increasing the level of funding; nor should we castigate ourselves solely on the basis that we do not spend as much as other states.

"There are many improvements to our educational system that can be accomplished without additional costs," said Long.

State Rep. Mary Kasten (R-Cape Girardeau) said she doubts voters and even the majority of legislators are ready to vote for major tax increases for education.

"I'm sure we will look at all parts of it, but I don't see overall support for the whole package," said Kasten.

She and other area lawmakers said the bill serves as a starting point for discussion of the need for increased funding for education.

The bottom line, she said, is that increased funding for education won't occur without public support. "Nothing happens until the power of public pressure makes it happen," she stated.

"We have poured and poured money into education," she pointed out.

In his recent State of the State Address, Ashcroft noted that between 1982 and 1991, the state added $425 million to education foundation expenditures, which amounted to a 60 percent increase.

Public schools in Missouri have fewer students now than in 1982, but total state aid to public schools has more than doubled, the governor said.

Sen. John Dennis (D-Benton) said he supports Mathewson's bill, although he anticipates some changes will be made in the measure.

Dennis said it's particularly important to target new money for pre-school and first, second and third grade programs.

"I think the whole (education) system should be reformed," he added.

Dennis estimated there is only a 50 percent chance of such a tax measure being approved by the legislature.

"Quite a few legislators and a lot of the public will be opposed to it," he said.

"I've gotten a lot of letters from teachers wanting more money (for education), but they don't want to pay any more taxes," said Dennis.

Mathewson has called the tax measure an "economic survival act."

"I think he's got it titled right," said Dennis Ziegenhorn (D-Sikeston). "The one thing I like about it more than anything else is that the people would get to vote on it and make the final decision."

Ziegenhorn said he doesn't like earmarking money for education or any other specific area. He said he would prefer to see an overall tax hike that would provide additional funding not only for education, but for other areas, such as mental health.

"We need to put a proposal out there that is a decent proposal," said the Sikeston legislator. "I don't want to have to come back and ask for more later."

Ziegenhorn said, "I think it is very clear that the governor does not want to have a tax increase."

But, he maintained that in April, the governor will see how far behind the state is in terms of revenue.

The result, he said, is that Ashcroft will be forced to back the tax measure or develop one of his own.

Ziegenhorn said he believes Missouri voters will support a tax hike if they can be shown the need for additional funding.

Missourians live in a low-tax state, said Ziegenhorn, pointing out that the state budget has grown from $4.6 billion to $8.2 billion in the last 10 years, mostly through growth rather than new taxes.

Rep. David Schwab (R-Jackson) said there is a need for increased funding for education, particularly for public schools.

Schwab said he supports Ashcroft's call for reform in education, and in state government in general.

"I think what the governor has said is he feels we need to get our house in order first and have some reforms in education as well as other state agencies before we would go to the people and ask for increased spending," he noted.

While he doesn't personally like earmarking of taxes, Schwab said he feels voters will only approve tax increases for specific programs or projects.

"I don't feel they trust us to take their taxes and spend them wisely," he said.

Schwab said people are in an anti-tax mood. "I'm not sure that we can convince the voters that we have more of a need (for revenue) than they have in their personal budget."

Schwab said he and other Republican legislators would like to see the implementation of zero-based budgeting, which would force the state to go back and justify past expenditures of state agencies before seeking additional funding.