BE OUR GUEST: HANCOCK II IS MORE BAD THAN GOOD

There's an old adage that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This commonly used and widely accepted wisdom warns that unnecessary and needless tampering inevitably brings more harm than good. Sadly, this old truism has never been more true than in the case of the Hancock II proposal that will appear before Missouri voters as Constitutional Amendment 7 on the Nov. 8 election ballot.

Time and again, angry citizens will call lawmakers in the state capital demanding to know how large our state's budget deficit is. We're always glad to tell them that in Missouri, we don't have a budget deficit. Our budget is balanced, to the penny, and always in the black.

In Washington, however, where Congressman Mel Hancock is supposed to be legislating, it's a different story. Under the Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush (and with Mel Hancock in Congress) our national deficit exploded 300 percent to top the $3 trillion mark.

So why has Mr. Hancock spent so much time and money in Missouri trying to change a balanced-budget system instead of working in the red-ink of Washington? Could it be the enormous tax burden Missouri imposes on its citizens?

Hardly. Based on the latest available records, Missouri ranks 49th lowest national in per capita state and local revenue. Only one state, the state of Arkansas, has a lower per-capita tax burden of all the 50 United States.

The fact that Missouri nationally ranks next-to-last in state and local tax burdens becomes even more significant when you consider that Missouri ranks 24th nationally in average per capita personal income. Consequently, Missouri has the best income to taxation ratio in the nation. Only Arkansas, the one state with a lower tax burden, could have a better score, but they aren't even close with a personal per capita income average that ranks 45th nationally.

The fact is, there isn't a single state in the nation where citizens earn higher incomes and pay lower taxes. So what is Mr. Hancock trying to fix with his amendment? Could it be that Missouri is spending too much on state government?

Not likely. In terms of per-capita state expenditures, Missouri ranks 49th in the nation. Only the state of Texas has a lower level of state expenditures per citizen than Missouri.

Perhaps Mr. Hancock is concerned that Missouri spends too much of citizens' income on state government. Wrong again. National figures on state total expenditures per $1,000 in personal income again rank Missouri 49th in all the United States. Only the state of New Hampshire spends less on state government per $1,000 of its citizens' earnings.

In a state ranked 49th in state and local tax burden, 49th in per capita state spending and with the best income to taxation ratio in the nation, citizens would be well served to ask not only why Mr. Hancock is attempting to fix something that isn't broken, but what damage will result from the repairs he claims to be making.

The fiscal note summary that will appear on the ballot speaks for itself: "This proposal will require state and local spending cuts ranging from $1 billion to $5 billion annually. Cuts would affect prisons, schools, colleges, programs for the elderly, job training, highways, public health and other services."

So if we slash $1 billion to $5 billion out of our state's $12 billion annual budget, if we close the schools, stop the highway construction, turn the criminals out of prison and cut programs for senior citizens, who will benefit from Mr. Hancock's fix?

The per-capita income in Missouri is about $19,400. Under Mr. Hancock's rebate formula, a person making this amount would be a reduction of about $82 per year, or $6.83 per month. Based only on the $133,600 a year taxpayers pay Mr. Hancock as a congressman, his tax break would be about $1,475 per year, or 17 times the amount saved by the average taxpayer.

In fact, while the Hancock II amendment claims to be tax reform, the numbers indicate that it's really a welfare program for the rich. In terms of total refunds under Hancock II, 46 percent of all revenue "saved" by slashing programs would go to only 9 percent of Missouri's taxpayers -- those with adjusted gross incomes over $75,000.

In comparison, more than half of the taxpayers in Missouri would receive less than 7 percent of the total revenues rolled back by Hancock II.

As president pro tem of the Missouri Senate, and as a citizen of this great state, I know that Missouri has the best tax deal for citizens of any state in the nation. It surely doesn't need the kind of "fixing" that Amendment 7 would wreak.

Our system in Missouri isn't broke. Our budget is balanced and we have the lowest tax to income ratio in America. And like that old adage goes, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

James L. Mathewson is a state senator from Sedalia and is president pro tem of the Missouri Senate.