SPEND TODAY, PAY TOMORROW

Fifteen percent of Missouri's registered voters, representing eight percent of the state's population, recently went to the polls to approve new public bonded indebtedness of more than $450,000,000 in principal and interest, to be repaid by money the state treasury will collect in the future.

Irresponsible? Perhaps, but as in many cases, there are extenuating circumstances. We'll come to the issue of public irresponsibility in a moment.

In question was whether the state should obligate itself for the next quarter of a century for prisons and new college facilities that it needs today. The issue of irresponsibility goes a little dimmer after statinq this. Perhaps those who weren't being responsible were those who opposed Amendment No. 4, which called for $250,000,000 in new state construction.

In stating both sides of the issue, it is possible to recognize the validity of both arguments. The state should not obligate a future generation without first providing the funds to retire the debt. On the other hand, the state has a clear and present need for new prisons, while existing ones are illegally overcrowded, and new facilities to improve the educational advantages of its brightest young citizens.

Perhaps, it can be argued, there is no irresponsibility at all. But what about adding an estimated $450,000,000-plus debt, including principal and interest, that already stands at more than $2 billion? That certainly can't be considered a responsible act, particularly in view of the repayment -more

1-add/spend today/pay tomorrow

provlsions that call for appropriations from future tax collections. That, decidedly, is irresponsible.

But the lack of responsibility can arguably not be placed on the backs of the 416,000 voters who cast ballots for Amendment 4. As for who wasn't responsible, remember that among the 408,000 voters who cast ballots against the amendment, there is always a certain number that automatically votes no against any spending, regardless of the need or its merits.

Voters on both sides of the issue really had little choice on Aug 2. Conscientious voters may have anguished long and hard, and no doubt some felt a degree of bitterness in being given such a short option concerning the state's present and future programs. It was a case of bad if you do and bad if you don't.

And that, fellow Missourian, is a poor way of deciding public policy, particularly when other options are available.

Missourians were given the bad-yes and bad-no choice by their elected representatives in Jefferson City. The initial bond issue to finance new prisons and play catch-up on college campuses was proposed by Gov. Carnahan in his annual budget message last January. His suggestions were acted upon by lawmakers worried about unmet capital improvement needs, and the result was the decision to submit the $250,000,000 amendment to voters.

Lawmakers who acted on the governor's proposal recognized there was perhaps no quicker way of meeting the building needs than the general revenue plan. To men and women

-more

2-add/spend today/pay tomorrow

who must face an angry electorate every two or four years, the least painful method is the preferred one. You can't blame them, not really, for the reality of public life is keeping constituents happy, or at least this side of a vengeful mood. So you placate the voters, and what better way to keep them from rioting around the city square than by giving them the facilities they need and paying for them in the future?

As for interest costs, well, future taxpayers will just have to eat these. We'll let them make the sacrifices when the time comes, and let them reduce their critical needs. With any luck at all, maybe they won't have any. We know better than that but any excuse is better than none.

So, if all those who voted for the new indebtedness and those who voted against it and those who submitted the proposal are not culpable, who is guilty? The laws of logic state that if a crime has been committed, someone had to do it. But we've eliminated virtually all the parties involved and exonerated each of them.

That leaves one party still unaccused. Granted, it's a collective one, but since all the others have been declared not guilty, logic leads us to the unindicted. And that, fellow jurors, is the general public. Insisting that it is tired of paying high taxes, in a state that has the second lowest per capita tax rate in the country, the public wants its needs fulfilled without having to worry about paying for them. Shucks, the public is so removed it doesn't even want to know any details, unless you're talking about O.J., Michael or Roseanne.

Jack Stapleton is a longtime Missouri journalist whose column keeps tabs on Jefferson City.