KEEP IT SIMPLE: VOTERS MUST BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND LIMITS ON TAXES

editorial for monday, dec. 12:

The bandwagon Gov. Mel Carnahan has hopped on regarding a constitutional amendment to allow a vote on state tax increases sounds like it is short a few clarinets and trombones.

In the wake of the defeat last month of Amendment 7, the so-called Hancock II amendment, there have been calls (including editorials in the Southeast Missourian) for a clearly written amendment to be submitted to voters. Carnahan has quickly embraced a proposal by the Missouri Farm Bureau, which would let voters have their say on statewide tax increases that exceed 1 percent of the state's revenue, which means, in effect, any increase of $50 million or more based on Missouri's current revenue situation.

Too bad that limit -- which may not appeal to many voters -- wasn't in effect when the governor rammed a $310 million tax increase disguised as school-funding reform through the General Assembly last year. That is where it all started, you remember. The backlash to that piece of legislation resulted in the complex Hancock II amendment, which was defeated soundly by voters in November.

The Farm Bureau's proposed amendment is being touted as simple and easy to understand. Here is what its four sentences say:

"In addition to the revenue limit imposed by Section 18(a), the General Assembly shall not increase taxes or fees that produce net new revenues in any fiscal year in an amount greater than 1 percent of total state revenues for the second prior fiscal year without voter approval. The measure of net new revenues for this purpose shall be the first full fiscal year of complete implementation of the tax or fee increase. Any revenue derived from taxes or fees approved by the voters on or after Nov. 4, 1980, shall be excluded from total state revenues. In the event of an emergency, the General Assembly may increase taxes or fees beyond the limit in this Subsection 18(e) under the same procedure specified in Section 19 of this article."

While this proposal is significantly simpler than Hancock II, it leaves something to be desired as far as comprehension goes. The governor says he wants voters only to have a say on "major" tax increases and not fees, but fees are mentioned anyway. How clear are phrases like "second prior fiscal year"? Who is going to estimate how much revenue a proposed tax increase will generate in the "first full fiscal year of complete implementation?" Will all the estimates be the same, or will some be as low as $150 million and others as high as $5 billion? And who is familiar enough with Section 18(a) or any of the sections preceding or following it to be comfortable with this proposed change?

Questions also must be raised about sidestepping any requirement that limits tax increases. For example, might not a clever General Assembly seek to increase or broaden existing taxes, thereby skirting the limits of the Farm Bureau's proposal?

The Farm Bureau has taken a step in the right direction. The aim is to give voters a crack at a simple amendment that will put tax increases on the ballot. It seems like this could be accomplished by amending Article X of the Missouri Constitution with the addition of Section 25. It doesn't take four sentences. It only takes one:

"The General Assembly shall not enact, increase or broaden any tax without first obtaining voter approval."

There. Fifteen words. Does anybody not understand what they say?