MISSOURI WATCH: POLITICAL ANSWERS BREED PUBLIC PROBLEMS

In the eyes of most beholders, one of the least important functions of citizenship is to inspect from time to time just how well or how poorly our governments are meeting their responsibilities to the governed. Historians dutifully record how governments are formed and by whom and for what, but seldom do they write, except in sweeping generalities, how well they perform once they are created. Only when a system of governance is approaching or has reached a state of collapse does history take note of its consistent successes and failures.

For a moment, let's examine, at least cursorily, how well and how poorly Missourians are being governed by the officials they elect every two, four or six years. To make the task even more difficult but more effective, forget for the moment which political faith these officials embrace, for over the course of more than 175 years, both have had their shares of successes and failures, so partisan affiliation is more a footnote than an integral part of the main text.

In discussing the efficiency of state government with a number of Missourians, there appears to be a consensus among those venturing an opinion that, for the most part, the citizens of our state are governed with acceptable attention to detail but a regrettable lack of concern over future consequences. This is not a proprietary view of government in Jefferson City but rather one that can be assigned to other states as well. Popularly elected governments seem to be more effective at resolving immediate problems than solving dilemmas created by their solutions. Countless examples abound, but a couple should be sufficient:

1. Five years ago the state resolved a long-standing problem of inadequate highway construction funds by increasing a very low user tax. The fact proponents used flawed arguments to assuage public concern is of no direct bearing to the dilemma, except to note that citizens' expectations were unduly heightened, creating a sense of outrage now that goals have been judged unattainable. The unresolved portion of this state dilemma is that in the intervening years, as citizen demands have expanded, the highway agency has taken on more and more assignments, growing far beyond its initial conceptual boundaries. Millions and millions of dollars are going for other forms of transportation, all with powerful constituencies, and so Missouri is meeting these demands by weakening its original purpose. If the absence of foresight was an impeachable offense, hundreds of elected officials would have exited long ago.

2. Governmental machinery in Jefferson City was marshaled just a few years ago to help the state's largest urban area secure what that community had earlier elected to ignore: a professional football team. The football-less citizenry of St. Louis passed a major share of this fourth-down offensive to Jefferson City, and the final score was Downtown St. Louis 7 and Missouri Taxpayers 0. After mortgaging everything but the mayor's dental plates, St. Louis got the team, such as it is, and the rest of us got a bill which, with interest, will be twice the amount always cited by Sunday afternoon jocks.

Regarding this last problem/solution, the hometown paper in Kansas City usually notes that sports funding for their township is "a matter of fairness." That term was used just the other day in a Kansas City newspaper editorial that sought to justify a 50 percent increase in state funds for stadium expenses in Jackson County. The clinching argument, provided in the same piece, was that "the state treasury reaps more than that amount in revenue from state sales and income taxes charged for activities at the sports complex." The logic, of course, is absurd, since the state Constitution requires a commonality of purpose and intent from government and the charter is quite wisely silent on the efficacy of self-funding.

By answering the desires of sports fans in St. Louis with a nearly $700 million "loan" while giving up operational control, Jefferson City solved one problem that created additional ones. The sin is not in making a mistake, for that is the sign of human frailty. The sin is making an error without any remedy for its consequences, which unfortunately have escalated far beyond any point of easy or equitable resolution. The same words can be used with regard to the highly publicized, confidence-damaging highway construction plan crisis.

The cause and effect syndrome is rife in democratic forms of government, at least partly because the concept of dedication to the general welfare has been interpreted to mean the welfare of a handful. In the stadium examples cited above, Missouri now has some very satisfied sports fans (except when they view the season records of their hometown teams), but it still lacks any responsible method of reviewing, resolving, correcting or amending egregious mistakes.

This is because the errors of the past -are passed on to a new generation of leaders, and thanks to pejorative term limits provisions, the current leaders feel less responsible for future dilemmas than did their predecessors. The concept of letting the new group solve the problems created at the moment has never been more popular. Nor, we might add, more harmful to the idea that public officials should be held responsible for their own actions.

This lack of planning for harmful consequences even serves to harm those who seek reckless solutions. The No. 1 problem in both St. Louis and Kansas City is not a sports franchise or maintenance of concrete bleachers. The problem of both urban units is inadequate education, low-paid workers, neighborhood crime, pervasive drug cultures and dwindling tax resources. These are the true general welfare needs of our state, both urban and rural.

How many solutions for these problems have you heard lately?

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