POLITICIANS REASON WHY IT'S CERTAINLY HARD TO SAVE BUCK

Responding to a recent column on the need for Missouri to reinvent government, a state official called to declare his full support of the idea while expressing numerous reservations about his contemporaries being as "enlightened." Thanking him, as I do any reader who expresses positive responses, I proceeded to inquire about the degree of his commitment. He assured me it was "total."

Well, let's see how enlightened and committed this official really is. Inquiring first whether he thought it was a good idea to require state agencies to walk the zero-based-budgeting path, he said the idea was "sound" in principle but probably lacked practicality. "It's too much," he said, expressing concern over the degree of extra work this form of budgeting might inflict on departmental fiscal employees.

Forget zero-based budgeting.

Next, inquiring about the official's support for a broad state review of tax exemptions, costing the state millions of dollars annually, our friend once again offered his support in principle but admonished me to remember that requiring favored corporations, wealthy tax-exempt organizations and heavily endowed universities to pay more than $1 a year in taxes would be "bitterly opposed."

Strike review of tax exempts.

I then inquired whether the official would mind if there were a broad review of the state's public building policy, which delays construction costs for years while committing the taxpayers to long-term leases that sometimes equal twice the original building expense. I coupled this with a suggested plan that the state construct one building per county to house all of its agencies, rather than lease as many as 10 different buildings at a much higher cost. Gee, said our official, this might delay construction of new office buildings in Jefferson City and might prove "inconvenient" if a number of state agencies in a county had to share a single building.

Strike common sense for state construction costs.

Asked how he felt about an outside review of state purchasing of electronic equipment, including everything from computers to unneeded cellular phones, the official assured me he was 100 percent in favor. Of course, he wanted the "priority" equipment he favored exempt from any cost-cutting review, noting he was unaware of any of the unnecessary costs that had been mentioned. It seemed he had not heard Jefferson City leases or purchases hundreds of additional computers year after year and that these requests are always based on creating greater efficiency, without any demand for proof. It seems he had never noticed the constant replacement of electronic equipment based on the excuse that previous purchases were no longer "up to speed."

Strike official awareness of an annual and repetitive multimillion-dollar expense to the taxpayers.

When inquiry was made as to the official's view about diversion of state money for projects that had never been reviewed or even mentioned to Jefferson City, our friend was forthrightly opposed. "I certainly don't agree with that," he firmly declared with an authoritative tone that left little doubt where he stood. When reminded that he had voted to encumber the next generation of Missouri taxpayers for the financing of a football stadium in St. Louis and a convention center in Kansas City, there was only a moment of hesitation before he declared his vote had been a mistake. He would never again be a party to such fund diversion, he insisted, but seemed to hedge on any future opposition to supplying highway funds for the operation of an already bankrupt rapid transit system in St. Louis. He explained he did not want to "preempt" support for needed transportation improvements, which is another word for buses, in outstate Missouri, although he was hard pressed to name any demands from the public for such funding.

Scratch pledges not to divert collective tax revenue to local projects that are neither supported nor funded by local taxpayers.

As the conversation was ending, the official reiterated his undying support for greater economy in state government. "We need every cent we can save to meet the gosh-awful costs of rehabilitating all those unfortunate folks who got caught in the flood. We need more men and women who are willing to make the hard choices in Jefferson City, and you're right on target when you give us suggestions. Please don't stop giving us new ideas," he urged.

Responding to his last invitation, I have another idea: Let's burn all of Missouri's stupid, self-promoting, insincere politicians at the stake.