HANCOCK II HAS RIGHT MOTIVE, BUT THERE ARE THORNS TOO

The Revolutionary War was fought, in part, because of confiscatory tax rates, and the United States was founded on the principal of government of the people, by the people and for the people. The Missouri Constitution mirrors those sentiments.

It is understandable why the creeping burden of federal, state and local taxes has so many people troubled.

Imagine, then, a mechanism that enables Missourians to vote on all new state and local taxes and to stop unfunded state mandates and local taxes as a condition of state funding. Imagine a constitutional amendment that would restrict how much money the state can take in and that would refund any revenue above the limit to taxpayers.

Sound too good to be true? Proponents of the Hancock II Amendment, which may or may not make it on the statewide election ballot in November, say that is exactly what their proposal will do. The amendment was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mel Hancock of Springfield following the legislature's passage last year of Senate Bill 380, a $310 million tax increase for schools. Hancock also is credited with authorship of the original Hancock Amendment approved by Missourians about a decade ago.

There are many good reasons to question the merits of SB380, which not only raised state income taxes in the name of education, but also mandated some local school districts to raise their property taxes. For one thing, the legislation violated Gov. Carnahan's campaign promise to put an education tax increase on the ballot.

When the grass-roots push for Hancock II ensued, critics came out of the woodwork, using the media throughout the state to point out flaws in the amendment. Opponents include the Missouri State Teachers Association, the Missouri Council of School Administrators and the Missouri State School Board Association.

It is easy to question the motives of such groups whose constituents stand to lose funding for which lobbyists have worked hard to procure -- with or without a vote of the taxpayers. After all, if there is a compelling reason to increase taxes for schools and higher education, what is wrong with making your case with the voters and letting them decide?

That was the intention of Hancock II's predecessor. The original Hancock Amendment, though, too often has been circumvented by legislation and court decisions. Hancock II, then, is a good-faith effort intended to return to the people more of their constitutionally granted rights and powers.

Good intentions aside, are the benefits of such an amendment outweighed by the potential liabilities and litigation explosion the measure would prompt? The practical effects of the amendment could be devastating.

If passed, it would trigger massive cuts, agree many individuals who closely monitor state finances, not only in Missouri's education, but in corrections and social services. Missouri's already overcrowded prison system would face a $55 million budget cut, while funding for roads would be cut by more than $100 million. Locally, Cape Girardeau's public schools could lose close to $1 million.

There also is some question whether the amendment would nullify the results of the recent election that allows the state to issue $250 million in bonds for state construction projects. Included in the package is funding for Southeast Missouri State University's long-awaited College of Business building.

Hancock II's potential impact goes beyond public schools and universities. It also restricts cities' ability to finance infrastructure improvements that foster economic growth and development.

Cape Girardeau regularly uses special tax bills to fund street and sewer extensions and improvements, with property owners abutting the improvements paying for the work. That could change under Hancock II. The Lexington Avenue arterial project in north Cape Girardeau would be impossible to do without such tax bills. Also, the city was able to annex Twin Lakes because of the ability to bill property owners for sewer improvements.

Hancock II also would require that increases in virtually every city and state fee, from swimming pools to campgrounds operated by the state. This seems a rather cumbersome way to run a state. Voters shouldn't have to go to the polls for every nitpicking fee increase proposed by some branch of state government.

There should be little disagreement over efforts to make public officials more accountable by closing some of the loopholes that weaken the original Hancock Amendment. But unclear and flawed wording in that measure's progeny likely will produce only confusion and a lawyer's bonanza that generates litigation for many years to come.