SOME WORDS ARE DOWNRIGHT EXPENSIVE

Words make a world of difference in how we perceive issues, policies and programs, and the way in which the public views the meanings of certain words is a significant factor in how they are accepted. For example, when public officials use the word "revenue," the connotation it carries is positive, since the public most often perceives the word to mean funding for increased services as well as the means of avoiding deficit spending and public debt. A government that has revenue is capable of performing the kinds of services the public wants to receive. An alternative word is "taxation," which in essence means the same thing but which carries a far different, much more negative image. It is little wonder that our elected politicians long ago gave up calling for higher taxes and began speaking of the need for revenue enhancement.

If words are important, so is the true, and oftentimes hidden, intent of those who press for "reform" and "change" and "reorganization." All of these words, with their positive images, may mean something different to their political authors than to the public at large. William Jefferson Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office today because he convinced enough voters that his election would bring about change, while four more years of George Bush meant stagnation and drift. Clinton called for reform of the government, with promises of reorganization. He purposely didn't use words like "steady" and "cautious" (at least not for his first shot at the White House) because those would have been a boost for his opponent. Clinton is far more likely to use these words when and if he seeks re-election four years from now. Then it will be Bush's "stay the course" plea.

There are certain other words and phrases that should automatically raise a red flag with an unsuspecting public. One such word, as far as we are concerned, is "reorganization." When it comes to state government, at least, the word's meaning has far different connotations to the sponsors than the taxpayers. We suggest that the public begin ducking whenever this word is used. It generally spells trouble, and more taxes, for John Q. Citizen.

We note several proposals to "reorganize" state government in the just-convened session of the General Assembly. That's not unusual; every session receives proposals to reorganize this or that department, and even the entire structure of state government. In recent years, for example, the Legislature enthusiastically supported, and approved, a measure changing several divisions into departments. We have in recent years established a Department of Health, and even more recently Missourians have approved a plan to change the Division of Insurance to the Department of Insurance.

There are several things wrong with this conversion process, but the most important is that it seldom, if ever, accomplishes the originally stated goals. The idea behind creating an entire department for public health was to lend emphasis to the agency's goals, expand its presence throughout the state and give it the importance that everyone believes it should have. The same goal was set forth with the creation of a Department of Insurance. The logic behind the move was irrefutable: insurance is an important component of every citizen's life and therefore an entire department is better able to control underwriters and protect the public.

After being in existence for some time, there is little evidence that the goal of improved public health has been realized because this state agency is now a department and not a division. The same can be said for the new Department of Insurance, at least in terms of providing greater rate protection to the state's consumers. Most insurance rates are higher today than when the agency was a division.

What this "reorganization" of public health and insurance and other agencies as well has really meant is increased employees, an expanded payroll, the creation of more higher paid state employees and a greater bureaucracy. By becoming a department, an agency is able to employ more assistant directors, more bureau supervisors and more top executives. Departments are always permitted more of these persons than mere divisions, bureaus and offices. When there are more assistant directors, there must, of course, be more secretaries, more office space, more automobiles, more computers and operators and all the other facilities that are seen as absolutely essential to accommodate an expanded bureaucracy.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claims that the mere creation of a department enhances state services to the public. There is evidence, however, that creating these departments does substantially increase the cost of state services to the public.

In the current legislative session there are, as noted, several splendid sounding measures to reorganize Jefferson City. One calls for the creation of a new Department of Aging, an agency whose services are now dispensed by a Division of Aging within the Department of Social Services. No one believes the aged should be deprived of any services, and thus it is sometimes difficult to oppose bureaucracy manufacturing schemes because it's something like being against motherhood. But the truth is that the aged citizens of Missouri will get more services for the tax dollar from an adequately staffed agency than one that is filled with bureaucratic directors and supervisors.

There's another measure to create a new State Reorganization Commission. Like the last commission we had did such a wonderful job! We speak from personal experience about the one that was convened in the early 1970s, since we happened to be a member of the final oversight committee. It was a joke, folks. The commission created change all right, but it was not effective change despite the expenditure of a vast amount of money, time and effort. The reorganization plan that was signed into law by Gov. Kit Bond on Feb. 13, 1974, shuffled agencies like a riverboat casino dealer shuffles cards. The 1974 act cost Missourians a lot of tax money because its ultimate effect was to create more bureaucracy than previously and increase agency salaries throughout Jefferson City. These words don't mean "reform" they mean "higher taxes."