TOMORROW'S ELECTION PARADE HAS BEEN POLITICALLY POSTPONED

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, particularly ones being staged by this year's candidates for statewide office, but before I get in step with the music, I wish everyone could read the current issue of "State & Local Source Book 2000." This publication, now in its sixth year, keeps tab on expenditures for essential services of all 50 states, ranking them in terms of per capita investment in such critical fields as education, social services, health, public safety, corrections and technology progress. The annual report also takes a close look at state and municipal government tax collections and the public debt of these jurisdictions.

As we are told during each two-and four-year campaign cycle, and in the interim by those who favor avoiding political heat by recommending voter avoidance of higher tax rates, Missouri is a low-tax state, a reputation we promote to assuage our own tax traumas and one designed to attract new industries and new families to our borders. This year's Congressional Record source book confirms our low-tax-rate boasts but it also makes clear that, unless we want to shut down fully 25 percent of all state programs, we won't always be able to compete with other jurisdictions, many of them below the Mason-Dixon line.

Missouri ranks 36th nationally in taxes and fees collected to support state and local governments, while Missourians rank 46th among the 50 states in terms of actual dollars spent to support these same institutions. The state picks up additional cash from several different sources, including levies and fees that are paid by non-residents and cash sent directly from Washington to Jefferson City. But the actual cost to individual residents to maintain these governments is barely 10 percent of personal income, while the average per capita rate for all states is 11.3 percent of personal income.

Missouri ranks 29th in corporate income tax collections, placing us pretty much in the middle of the states in this category, while putting us well ahead of such states as Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa and Kentucky, but far behind such larger-taxing states as California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Michigan. Since much larger corporations are located in these latter states, it's hard to argue that Missouri is attracting new job opportunities by maintaining its low corporate tax collection rates.

Our insistence on maintaining low individual and corporate tax rates has been motivated by voter anger over higher taxes, an understandable reaction that should motivate elected officials to devise sufficient safeguards for low-income citizens while shifting liability to those who can afford to pay more. It is ludicrous for a high-salaried corporate executive to pay a real estate tax rate that is equal or even below the rate assessed on families barely getting by on small pension checks.

Congressional Quarterly's report on state and local public debt is also revealing, illustrating once again a negative voter reaction to supplying essential capital improvements for schools and other public structures. Our state ranks 46th in per capita public debt, just ahead of Arkansas, but well behind New York where the per capita cost is more than three times greater than Missouri's. It is possible rate structures make the difference between New Yorkers willing to support public improvements and Missourians who oppose every bond issue that comes along. The difference between these two states may well be the difference in repayment, distributing it more equitably in the Empire State than the Show-Me State.

It is also possible that Missouri ranks so low in both tax liability and capital investment because its units of government provide limited public services in such essential areas as education, health-care, insurance and social services. It has not been too many years ago that a director of Missouri's federal medical program, even when Washington was paying 90 percent of the cost. This unilateral decision by one welfare director, while widely applauded by anti-tax proponents, served to put the state behind schedule in meeting many of the needs of its poorest citizens. This dogged refusal to join the last century was more typical among important public officials than seems logical, or even rational, today, but it existed in Jefferson City and was widely applauded in various areas of the state. To refuse such federal assistance seems almost criminal today, but it unquestionably played a role in shaping today's pejorative thinking that stymies progress and hinders the opportunities for tomorrow's citizens.

Voters are not going to hear many realistic solutions to other findings in the Congressional Quarterly report from this year's statewide candidates for office in Jefferson City and Washington. Missouri currently ranks 42nd nationally in per capita spending for all educational programs. We used to rate even lower than that, but we have done slightly better in recent years, but not much. And, more importantly, not enough. There is a definite correlation between the amount of money the public is willing to spend on education and the quality of learning, primarily because we are able to motivate teachers with adequate compensation who in turn are willing to motivate their students to higher achievement levels.

There will be numerous political plans to attack Missouri's No. 1 problem with all kinds of painless solutions, few calling for increased tax support, which means that few will offer any real answers. If the voters don't want to hear the painful truth on making schools better, why should we expect candidates soliciting their votes to fall on the sword? Low cost is always translated in Missouri as low political risk.

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