BE OUR GUEST: SENATOR QUESTIONS HANCOCK'S MOTIVES

James L. Mathewson is President Pro Tem of the Missouri Senate.

~~

Recently, Republican Congressman Mel Hancock has been traveling around the state criticizing Gov. Mel Carnahan and the General Assembly for approving the Outstanding Schools Act of 1993. Hancock, who sponsored the state tax and spending limit approved by voters in 1980, has been leaving the impression that the General Assembly and governor violated the state constitutional amendment named for him by not submitting the bill to a statewide vote.

Hancock wrote the spending and tax limit in 1980 and, with the help of the Missouri Farm Bureau, was able to get the spending lid on the ballot. He knows perfectly well that the constitutional amendment does not require a public vote. Instead, it requires the General Assembly not to raise taxes beyond certain limits based on the growth of personal income in Missouri. The General Assembly always has lived within the limits imposed by the Hancock ~Amendment. Local governmen~ts also have learned to live with its restrictions on their taxing and spending policies.

In fact, the Kansas City Star noted in a recent editorial, the General Assembly has submitted tax increases to the people even when that action was not required by the Hancock Amendment. It also should be pointed out that ~during the final year of his second term, former Gov. John ~~Ashcroft asked the House and Senate to approve a 5-cent increase in the state gasoline tax. Where was Mel Hancock? He did not travel around the state accusing his fellow Republican governor with violating either the letter or spirit of the Hancock Amendment.

~I find it curious that Hancock seems to want to put limits on state spending only when a governor from the Democratic Party is in office. It should be remembered that Hancock started his three-year effort for the original Hancock Amendment during the administration of former Gov. Joseph Teasdale, a Democrat. Hancock did not have the same outrage about tax increases or state spending levels under Ashcroft.

In his public statements Hancock also skirts the issue of who will pay the taxes for the Outstanding Schools Act. He prefers to simply portray it as the largest tax increase in Missouri history. He does not mention that additional revenue for our public school system will come almost exclusively from increases in taxes on corporations and individuals in the top 15 percent of income brackets. The truth, and Hancock knows this, is the majority of Missourians will not be seriously affected by the bill. In contrast, the gasoline tax backed by Ashcroft affected every person in Missouri who operates a motor vehicle.

In addition, Hancock bases his assertion that the education bill violated the Hancock Amendment mostly on Republican State Auditor Margaret Kelly's estimate, which, in turn, is based on the use of hospital contributions used to attract federal funds. Ashcroft ignored Kelly's estimate when he was governor. In fact, in an interview with the Associated Press in April, Ashcroft said he thought Kelly's use of the hospital revenue in computing the Hancock limit was erroneous. Ashcroft was quoted as saying the hospital revenue "wouldn't rightfully be considered state revenues" for the purposes of Hancock. The current governor, like Ashcroft, used estimates prepared by the Missouri Office of Administration to compute the Hancock limit.

The fact is, the existing Hancock Amendment has worked fairly well. It was intended to keep state and local spending and tax levels within reasonable limits. Contrary to what Hancock says, the level of state, county and city spending and taxation remain responsible. As Hancock also knows, even with the increase in corporate income taxes contained in the Outstanding Schools Act, Missouri remains one of the lowest taxing states in the nation, and hence is attractive to new industries.

Hancock says a new "Hancock II" is needed. His committee, made up entirely of Republicans, is now organizing a petition campaign. But as the Springfield News-Leader, recently noted, Hancock wrote the original amendment based on a similar proposal in Michigan. The newspaper editorialized: ~'Hancock needs to quit blaming state government for the confusion. Much of the disagreement over just what the Hancock Amendment allows is Hancock's own doing."