TRYING TO UNTANGLE POLITICAL POWER PUZZLE

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the qoverned.

- Thomas Jefferson

In confronting a question that has challenged Americans since the time of Thomas Jefferson, members of the Missouri House of Representatives came face to face the other day with the use of power as opposed to securing consent to exercise it. The issue was one that had been handed the General Assembly by Gov. John Ashcroft in his Jan. 15 State of the State message, in which he urged legislators to enact a 6-cent gasoline tax increase without submitting the question to a statewide vote. The chief executive made the recommendation, he said, because it was necessary for Missouri to generate sufficient revenue to qualify for the first phase of the new federal highway act. By voting the increase now, without waiting for a referendum, the governor noted that federal funding was available immediately, enabling Missouri to create additional construction jobs during the current recession.

Although the General Assembly regularly increases taxes or fees of some sort during almost every session, the kind of tax increase the governor called for seemed to recommend itself to a vote of the people. A full 6-cent per gallon hike would give the state an extra $192 million, minus 25 percent which is disbursed to the cities and counties. Even as he was speaking, we suspect many lawmakers were silently calculating the cost of the proposed tax increase and then speculating whether they could safel~y risk approving the hike without first sending it to the voters.

It was at this ~point that the seemingly concise words of Thomas Jefferson concerning the use of power with the consent of the governed became both helpful and obtuse. Members of the Legislature have the power to increase taxes as long as they conform to the mathematical limits proscribed by the Hancock Amendment under the constitutional appanages delegated to the state assembly. Since the proposed $192 million increase fell comfortably within the Hancock limits, there was nothing to prevent members from approving the user tax hike. Nothing, that is, except the fear of voter retaliation at the next election. In one sense, this can be the most inhibiting constraint in government since perceived abuse of power can easily cost a politician his job. That's more threatening than the Mafia!

We know of numerous legislators over the years who have bravely contended they believe firmly in the right of elected officials to use their own judgment in deciding important matters of state. They have argued, with considerable merit, that they are in a better position to make important governmental decisions than their constituents, many of whom can't even identify their own state representative and senator. We also know some lawmakers who, having declared their independence in times past, suddenly lost their convictions when it came time to approve the tax issue before the General Assembly.

Those who preferred submitting the gasoline tax increase, even at a cost of $2 million, also had a valid point to make. Taking $192 million in extra levies from some 3 million state motorists every year is not an insignificant act. A higher gasoline user levy impinges most heavily on the poor, especially the working-class poor who daily drive to their jobs. The other side of this coin is that Missouri has one of the lowest gasoline taxes in the nation, the lowest of any of our neighboring states.

Still, the issue was more complicated than it seemed. There was the last-minute campaign to share a portion of the increase with Missouri's two metropolitan centers for current and proposed urban transit projects. Although the state's Constitution requires that funds collected at the service station pump be used only for road purposes (with the exception of some allocations to such related agencies as the Missouri Highway Patrol), there were some reasonable and valid reasons for taking urban transit projects into consideration. After all, alternative transportation systems reduce the need to pour more and more concrete to build additional urban-area interchanges, bypasses and supplementary routes.

The requirement that legislators take all of these points into consideration is not an insignificant one. Weighing one point against another and then casting an intelligent vote is almost daily fare for members during a 5-month session. Voters, on the other hand, usually focus on their own interests without regard for a state as a whole. Seldom does a citizen cast his or her vote on the basis of progress for the other fellow, particularly if he happens to live a couple hundred miles away.

What is the answer, then, to Thomas Jefferson's observation about the power of the state and its obligation to govern only with the consent of the governed? As we've attempted to point out, the issue is not academic since it holds far more ramifications than might at first be suspected. It's a troubling conundrum, particularly to conscientious elected officials. Having begun this piece with a quotation, we close it with one that perhaps best conveys our thoughts on the matter. Who could provide a better answer than our own Harry Truman, who was wont to observe:

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!