MISSOURI WATCH: BEWARE HULA-HOOP SYNDROME

It's great being a citizen of America the Beautiful for many reasons, one of them being the ability if one lives long enough to recognize an idea that was popular and in vogue four decades previously. We are presently witnessing an idea that is considerably longer than four decades, however, one that is nearly 225 years old.

Although some may have difficulty in recognizing it, this 1995 version of the hula hoop had its origin in America in the late 18th century. Its embodiment is no less than the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. For those who may have suffered -a temporary lapse of memory, let me restate its language: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

It's a beautiful clause, reserving as it presumably does, the sovereignty of Joe and Jane Citizen, establishing their right to exercise powers that would normally be grabbed up by some power-hungry dictator or decadent king. Of course, historians will tell you that the Tenth, like its counterpart in the Ten Commandments, has often been ignored, even forgotten. Through much of America's history, the Tenth Amendment has been disregarded by a federal government that, on too many occasions, assumed rights that were constitutionally denied. The practice of disregarding the amendment is so pervasive that it has been carried out by a majority of duly elected presidents since the days of Washington and Jefferson. Generally the only way these ignoble acts have been vetoed has been through decisions rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court, usually years and years after it made any difference.

The good old Tenth is making a comeback today, thanks in no small measure to Speaker Newt's Contract With America and a gathering sense of collective panic by most politicians within the exalted Beltway area. The deep, dark truth is that our Uncle Sam is so burdened with debt that had he been a real-life person would have declared bankruptcy years ago. Washington has become so huge that it can't even control the city hall within its own jurisdiction, much less administer relatively complicated programs beyond the borders of the District of Columbia.

Attempts to reinvent the Tenth were made in recent history as long ago as the ill-fated Nixon years. Remember when Sir Richard stood before America and said he was reinventing government to the extent that Washington would wire money to state capitols, county courthouses and city halls to perform jobs that were previously done by dark suits from the federal manpower pool? Poor Richard became so embroiled in 182-minute tapes that his feeble attempts to restore governmental sanity were soon forgotten. Gerald Ford was in office too briefly to resurrect the Nixon plan and Jimmy Carter was too busy being morose to jettison federal powers. Any plan to reduce government was somehow forgotten by Ronald Reagan and George Bush outlined a program in syntax no one understood. By the time the Arkansas Archangel got to Washington, his plan to reinvent federal programs was forgotten amid a myriad of personal and family scandals that shocked even his friends and eventually failed even to delight his enemies.

Now, amidst trumpeting elephants outside the federal Capitol, the Goliath from Georgia has once again started the process of returning power to the states, and has suggested, amid cries of horror from Washington bureaucrats, that it's time for states to assume some programs that previously had been the sole property of federal egoists.

So, folks, we're soon going to see Jefferson City running welfare programs, maybe medical and health-care plans, perhaps food stamps, unemployment compensation, while receiving less from Washington to build roads and highways, provide assistance to the disabled and protect the environment. What makes Newt so refreshing is that he truly believes the states can do a better job than the feds, a viewpoint shared by leaders of the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives, not to mention the Governor and 95 percent of the population.

Well, these new responsibilities will certainly fit in neatly with the duties of state governments that have been exercised since the early days of the American Colonies. The country decided a long time ago that states could do a much better job than anyone else when it came to public education at the K-12 levels and such matters as keeping the peace and preserving law and order. Public schools and the criminal justice system have always been within the purview of the states. To assess the future of the proposed programs under state care, let's examine, briefly, how well the states have done in the areas they have always controlled.

How well are our states educating today's children? If you haven't read the writing, and misspelling, of a young elementary student, you may not be totally qualified to answer the question, but haven't all the people now jumping up and down about increased state jurisdictions read about stupidity being unresolved even with a high school diploma?

And how about law and order? Americans tell pollsters they believe the most important problem facing the country is preventing crime and keeping criminals out of other people's homes. How good a job does the state do in meeting this need?

If the states can't properly educate our children and can't clear our neighborhoods of drug-dealing thugs, how well do we believe they will do in solving the problem proliferation within the welfare system? The best answer

can give is that states probably won't do any worse job than the federal government, but to promise major improvements and less cost and smaller government is disingenuous. Even as we speak, state bureaucracies are growing faster than their federal counterparts can be dismantled. Anyone for hula-hooping?

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