HANCOCK CONFUSION CONTINUES UNABATED

The debate over Amendment 7, commonly known as Hancock II, is proceeding in a fashion that satisfies neither supporters nor opponents and leaves voters pleading for facts. The debate is messy, confusing, frustrating and, at times, infuriating. Welcome to grass-roots democracy by initiative petition, where questions abound. Among them:

-- How large will the mandated state budget cuts and/or accompanying refunds be? State lawmakers charged with drafting a ballot summary relied on a report written by former state budget director James Moody. Their forecast: $1 billion to $5 billion. Wrong, says the judge who slapped down that committee and rewrote the ballot description. That decision has been appealed and is currently pending in the court of appeals in Kansas City. Score one for Hancock.

This litigation, however, hardly quelled debate over how much of the state budget is at stake. The CATO Institute -- a free-market, Libertarian-affiliated, Washington, D.C.-based think tank -- weighed in last week with an analysis finding flaws in the Moody report and suggesting that the cost to the state budget would be more like $138 million. Moody scoffed, and Gov. Carnahan labeled the CATO findings "flawed" and a "poor analysis."

Still another analysis came from the Missouri Farm Bureau, whose grass-roots support in 1980 was critical to passage of Hancock I. This time, the Farm Bureau is officially neutral, but its president expresses "concern" with the potential impact on the state budget, which it estimates at "between $900 million and $1.4 billion." The Farm Bureau president, Charles Kruse, a Dexter farmer, pledges to work with all concerned to guarantee the best result in the event Amendment 7 passes.

State Rep. Mark Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) declared a pox on both houses this week, saying the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Skillful politician that he is, Rep. Richardson is taking no position on the proposal.

Yet another curve in the zig-zag stream of Hancock information was the announcement last week that Mark Pelts, a Kennett lawyer and Southeast Missouri State University regent, supports Hancock II. University officials, in the meantime, are sounding the alarm that Amendment 7 could have a devastating impact on the school.

Are federal funds included in the definition of state revenue? The Moody report, cited by opponents as authoritative, says yes, alleging a drafting error. Hancock II backers say no, citing the amendment's explicit language. Score one for lawyers. This one will be litigated, too.

Meanwhile, still another lawsuit could render moot the whole debate by knocking Amendment 7 off the ballot entirely, even at this late date. A decision this week, perhaps as soon as Tuesday, on an opposition lawsuit alleging insufficient petition signatures, could do just that. In such an event, expect supporters to be filled anew with rage while opponents sigh with relief.

Opponents have gone overboard, engaging in scare tactics so ridiculous that they are creating something of a backlash for the amendment. This overkill continues. If Amendment 7 passes, part of the reason will lie with the fact that opponents engaged in hysterical scare tactics.

The people of Missouri should have a right to vote on major tax increases. No one should forget that it is Gov. Carnahan's faithlessness to his 1992 campaign pledge on taxes that brought us Amendment 7. It is possible, however, to believe in this principle of public approval of major tax increases and still oppose this particular confusing and poorly drafted amendment. Moreover, if it is repeal of Gov. Carnahan's tax increases in Senate Bill 380 that is their real target, then Amendment 7 backers should have mounted a petition drive to refer that bill to the voters.

One thing is certain. Amendment 7 will be a bonanza for lawyers. Before Missourians have even seen it on their ballots, three lawsuits have been filed. Were Missourians to approve it, many more lawsuits would follow seeking to clarify the impact of its confusing and unclear language.

The best course for Missourians is to defeat Hancock II and for Hancock II supporters to come back with a simpler, better-written version that vindicates the public's right to vote on major tax increases.