`GOVERNMENT' IS NOT A FOUR-LETTER WORD

For a number of reasons that are not always obvious, the word "government" has increasingly become a pejorative term that, when used in the proper context, draws angry reactions from citizens whether at the local, state or federal level. It no longer seems strange to hear political candidates seeking public office denounce government while seeking to occupy a job within its structure. So prevalent has the practice become that we find nothing incongruous in hearing candidates volunteering to serve in a system that they describe as being corrupt, uncaring and wasteful. One gets the impression from these civic-minded volunteers that they are offering to go on some life-threatening mission in order to save the public from programs that have been devised to serve the public, often at the insistence of the public.

One manifestation of this political dichotomy is the growth of a political group, known as the Libertarian Party, that seeks to eliminate a sizable portion of all governmental programs and regulations. While in the process of achieving permanent ballot status in Missouri, the Libertarians have also been recruiting members who are committed to the concept of the least common governmental denominator. This extends even to the citizen's obligation of refusing to pay federal taxes, something the party's candidate for U.S. senator from Missouri has been doing for more than a decade.

But even the shrillest of champions for less governmental interference pause when they hear Libertarians call for abolition of laws against such dangerous drugs as cocaine, heroin and LSD. The Libertarians are not being inconsistent in calling for an end to illegal-drug prohibition, but the thoughtful citizen often draws up short of lending his support to such a goal.

The truth is that all of us who, from time to time vent our frustrations of government, often confuse our anger over the inefficiency or arrogance of government with a call for an abolition of government. The public wants an end to those programs it deems unneeded or those that are unused by the majority of us, while declaring our full support for those that benefit us or members of our family. For example, for millions of Americans, and a proportionate number of Missourians, the so-called welfare system is merely a collection of wasteful projects that serve those clever enough to receive benefits, yet to a sizable number of mothers who do not have sufficient income to buy food and clothing, the program is a vital component of staying alive and keeping a family together. Other examples of differing perspectives on governmental programs abound, and one of the most prominent one is in the area of environmental protection. Those who want to preserve Earth in much the way it was found centuries ago are often castigated by those who see no need for interference by government, but again the goals of both groups are more similar than their differing views on the efficacy of conservatory rules and regulations.

An example even closer to home is the current debate over the desirability of the Hancock II amendment that will be on the November 8 general election ballot. Proponents of Amendment No. 7 insist this proposal is designed to make state officials more responsive to the wishes of the electorate. But is this actually the goal? If the proposal is to make government more responsive, why does it include a provision requiring resubmission of two tax levies that have already been approved by the voters? Both Proposition C, which approved a 1-cent sales tax for education, and Proposition A, which increased motor fuel taxes, were approved before Hancock II was ever written, but the amendment would require them to be voted on again. Government was certainly being responsive when these taxes were submitted to popular vote, and the most recent tax increase in 1993 was voted by the General Assembly because government was responding to a court order requiring an end to unequal school funding throughout the state.

This is not a defense of governmental error, arrogance or deception. No citizen supports these traits and there is no legitimate defense of any of them. Government, like all human creations, can sometimes be guilty of all three, but this is hardly an adequate argument for burning down the barn just to get rid of a few pesky mice.

Jack Stapleton is Kennett columnist.