SKEPTICISM IN THE AGE OF REFORM

Every reform however necessary, will by weak minds be carried to an excess, that itself will need reforming

-- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

The 19th century English poet, philosopher and critic who wrote these words could not have envisioned how applicable they would be a century and a half after his death. America is awash in reform; our state is flooded with it; and society cries out for more and more of it.

Please don't misunderstand. People who make a living telling other people what they should think embrace reform with a quixotic fervor that would make Don Juan green with envy. A politician who says he intends to reform some federal or state program gains immediate attention from the press, as if his declaration of intent was all that was required to gain immediate believability and credibility.

Thus we find ourselves smack in the middle of the Age of Reform, with an enthusiasm not unlike the earlier 16th century Protestant Reformation that, just as Coleridge noted a couple of centuries later, would eventually provide excess, requiring still more reform. Indeed, so pervasive has this exercise become today, on occasion it is the only comfort society can muster from the encroachments of government into our daily lives and fortunes.

The irrefutable fact of reform is that it is bipartisan in nature. The fervor of Roosevelt to install the New Deal was no greater than efforts by Reagan to undo some of its programs. The determination of Nixon to gain historical posterity by reforming welfare was no less than the drive of Clinton to achieve the same goal. Reform is the adopted child of Democrats and Republicans alike; only the subject matter has been changed to protect the governed. Unfortunately, it seldom does.

In Washington, there is an anticipation only slightly greater than that found in the hinterlands, as the current President of the United States arms himself for the battle of health-care reform. One can sense, in Washington, D.C. and Washington, Mo., a feeling of anticipation as the nation's politicians prepare for the fight to approve or reject the ideas of Hillary Clinton and her husband on how to improve, expand, refine -- and yes, reform -- the way Americans receive medical care.

Despite the anticipation all Americans feel as the date nears for the all-but-certain bloody encounter on reforming how we relate to our health providers and the way they relate to us, there remains the nagging question about the competency of the reformers, the fear raised by Coleridge that any reform initiated will, in due course, require reforming.

There has never been a reluctance on the part of reformers to declare their competency to reform better than any of those around them, and politicians have never been backward in stating their proficiency in fields they know nothing about, except by hearsay. This political confidence stems, believe it or not, not because of expert knowledge in the field of reform but in the sheer achievement of receiving more votes than the other candidate.

In terms of intellectual enfranchisement, an election victory is about as reassuring as Ross Perot's claim that all issues are simple and lend themselves to easy solutions.

The one great fear of all reform is that it will produce more problems than it solves, that in the resolving of an enigma we will insert one just as puzzling. Earlier this year Missourians witnessed what many called public education reform, which became known as the Outstanding Schools Act and/or S.B. 38O. Hailed by proud authors, it seemed to correct one of the basic problems facing the state: the inequity of a funding formula that had been declared inequitable and thus unconstitutional. The formula has been changed, and millions of dollars in increased revenue have been added to facilitate that change, and yet in private moments, state officials have told me they still do not know if the reformed formula has achieved equity.

They do know that it has created a loophole of considerable import, namely the ability of local districts to secure ever larger state payments while placing their construction bonds under lease-purchase agreements. This single loophole could siphon as much as one-half the increase in state funding, thus rendering our highly acclaimed education reform virtually meaningless.

One need not look far in Missouri to find countless reforms in the making. In recent years we have reformed everything from legislators who remain in office too long to public officials who have been deprived of the discipline that can only be provided by an ethics commission. Now we are on the threshold of a reform in campaign contributions, with an opportunity to make our choice between a plan to be offered by the governor and some members of the legislature and one to be submitted by a former secretary of state. Although the number of errors may not be equal, there is little reason to doubt that both will eventually prove flawed and in need of further reform.

Additionally, we Missourians have been promised welfare reform, a hope held out as long ago as Richard Nixon. The current president wants to accomplish the same promise and so does our current governor. Without being predictably cynical, let me say that any reader experiencing difficulty in breathing should not postpone the exercise waiting for the answers to many of the problems that have long been endemic to the science of public assistance. The public's principal concern with current welfare programs is that they often fail their mission and cost far too much. You can rest assured that any reforms will cost far more than we are currently paying, with no greater promise of deliverance than before.

Cynical? Perhaps it is only having watched one reform after another, most with the same results. Some were worse than the pre-existing conditions.

There is something unusual about reform movements in our state. Many of them are inaugurated and carried out by Republicans. There's Hancock I, which in 13 years hasn't once triggered its enforcement provisions, and which is now in the process of being reformed again. The GOP has basically given us term limits, ethics oversight and a proposal for campaign funding limits. Of course, the GOP has also given us Nixon and Cill Webster. As I said, reform really is bipartisan.