MISSOURI WATCH: A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON WAY TO REFORM

Millions of Americans are laboring under the impression their state and federal governments are engaged in massive reform programs that will produce such amazing results as (a) lower taxes, (b) less bureaucracy and (c) improved services to targeted groups of citizens.

This may be the worst joke since the Democratic candidate for president in 1992 promised the American people low-cost, universal health care.

The problem attached to many political promises delivered during campaign tours or from the steps of the nation's Capitol is that, more often than not, they are soon crunched into little unfunny jokes that turn out harming innocent citizens and whole families.

We suspect a great many citizens were on the threshold of canceling their medical policies after Bill Clinton painted a rosy scenario of improved health services at lower costs to consumers. Likewise, we suspect many are still counting on the so-called "reform" measures voted by Congress and signed by the President to reduce the size of government, restore more equitable balance between federal and state governments, cut taxes and provide the services needed by the poor and unfortunate who live in our communities.

Bad jokes, harmful jokes, very unfunny jokes.

Take the case of welfare reform, a term that has become an accepted part of speech among hundreds of public officials in our own state. Even before the Republican majority in Congress rolled up its sleeves to pare federal public assistance costs, highly placed state officials were hailing the move, even though there were no particulars and even though these same men had no idea what rules and regulations would be coming from Washington nor how much additional revenue would be needed.

For these Missouri officials also shared the principles that were so clearly enunciated by House Speaker Newt Gingrich in his "Contract with America." The preamble of that contract is bipartisan, for only a handful of elected officials deny the efficacy of reducing the size of government and making it more efficient, accomplishing both with lower appropriations of public funds. That's a bipartisan ideal. The only difference is that the Republican majorities in Congress elected to attempt to meet this utopian concept of self-government. There's nothing wrong with this attempt, and one is even tempted to applaud its movement even when its success is doubtful.

One word of caution: don't believe all you hear.

Let's arbitrarily pick the so-called welfare reform package that was approved by Congress and signed by the President in what was not accidentally also an election year. Other examples could be used, but this one is a classic, filled as it is with arbitrary deadlines, hidden costs, denied services and enough sham to last a political lifetime.

The welfare reform measure the states are now laboring over is a broadly defined method of reducing the costs of federal spending to care for poor families, undernourished children, and medically deprived needy citizens. You should note the word federal, for it is a key to understanding what is happening in this welfare interregnum as many of the principal programs to fight poverty are shifted from Washington to Jefferson City.

There were three Senate bills in the Missouri legislative session just ended that attempted to deal with health care for poverty-level citizens in our state. The technical name for this attempt was HCS/SS No. 2/SCS/SBs 202, 23, 183. If you think the bill language is complicated, you ought to read the texts of the three combined measures. Mind-boggling is a phrase that would be much more appropriate.

In a strict sense, this measure was an attempt to codify programs that have been proposed by the Department of Social Services, and while it provides for some very useful and helpful programs, it also manages to encompass some less than desirable suggestions. Basically, the reform package shifts authority to provide assistance from the give-and-take of a congressionally approved program not to an entire state government but to only one section of Missouri government. In doing so, it gives broad authority to just one individual, the director of the Department of Social Services, a post that is filled by gubernatorial appointment. There are some who believe the measure even broaches the state Constitution by giving spending powers to the proposed health care czar that were reserved for other agencies and the General Assembly.

Washington is almost hysterically dumping welfare programs that now take up to one-third of Missouri's total spending each year in an effort to shift costs from Washington to Jefferson City. This may bring lower appropriations for the feds but it means nothing to the taxpayer who shells out to both Washington and Jefferson City. It may even eventually mean not lower taxes but higher ones.

Despite the welfare devolution, there are still close to 4 million adults on public assistance, along with about 7 million children. The arbitrary time limits in the federal law demand that 80 percent of them be removed within five years, and the removal is to be accomplished by new job training programs, new child-care programs, new employees to oversee compliance and even new job-transportation programs. Even if the federal budget is cut as a result of this welfare shift, there is very clear evidence that Missourians will be shelling out increased taxes to fund these changes. The end result is not lower taxes but higher ones, not fewer public workers but more, not less government interference but more.

One of Missouri's responses to planned reform was Senate bills 202, 23 and 183, which fortunately was rejected in the final week. It was hardly the response that would bring cheer to any segment of the state.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.