LETTERS: AMENDMENT 7: PRO AND CON; CON: DON'T TAKE OUT REVENGE BY SUPPORTING AMENDMENT 7

To the editor:

On Oct. 3 Mel Hancock wrote a guest column for the Southeast Missourian that was nothing more than a constant attack on Gov. Carnahan and his views of Amendment 7. Why doesn't Mr. Hancock, instead, talk about what his amendment will do and the effects it will have on existing programs in Missouri? Is it that he doesn't know what will happen under his amendment or that opponents of the proposal are telling the truth about the amendment's devastating effects?

Mr. Hancock has not come forth with explanations and examples of what his amendment actually does. He states that "Hancock II will have no effect on the state budget." Yet, James MOody, former budget director in 1987 and 1988, commissioner of administration from 1989-1993 and a fellow Republican of Mr. Hancock's, has analyzed this section and believes that it will result in massive cuts in state services such as education, law enforcement and programs for the elderly. Even the most conservative estimates show Amendment 7 requiring a $1 billion reduction in state services which the amendment's backers concede is true. Where would these cuts come from? After exemptions only one-fourth of the budget would be left to absorb any cuts to be made.

As if cuts wouldn't create enough havoc, the amendment also requires that all taxes including property taxes, local taxes, licenses and fees shall be voted on by the people. Yet even if these taxes were passed, once they were subjected to the revenue cap, they could still be negated and returned to the voters as rebates. Every year, every tax would have to be re-voted. Elections aren't cheap, and neither is the paper-work that would be required to carry out this amendment. Then, even after all this, if a citizen wasn't happy with the tax, all he would have to do is sue the state, and all monies would then be tied up until the matter could be resolved in court. With an average $84 rebate for each middle income tax payer, what are we gaining? Of course, you don't hear much about the fact that Mr. Hancock's rebate would be much higher along with the other upper-level income tax payers.

If you are mad at the governor and the legislature for recent tax increases, you do have recourse. Contrary to Mr. Hancock's ads, we do have taxation with representation. We voted these people into office, and we can vote them out. Show your anger by voting them out of office in their next election. But, please don't take your revenge by supporting Amendment 7 and crippling the state of Missouri and its government. Please don't repeal or amend nearly one-fifth of our constitution in an act of anger. Missouri is already a low-tax state with the lowest tax-to-income ratio in America. This is a fact that can be proven. Can Mr. Hancock prove that his amendment won't harm the state of Missouri? I don't think so.

JEANETTE MASTIN

Scott City