UNCLE SAM GIVETH, AND HE TAKETH AWAY

KENNETT, Mo. -- Someday, somewhere, somehow, a historical scholar will attempt to understand the process under which the federal government of the United States formed a more perfect union, established justice, insured domestic tranquillity, provided for the common defense, promoted the general welfare and secured the blessings of liberty.

Anyone even remotely familiar with our federal Constitution will recognize these aims as the theme of the document's preamble.

No doubt these historians will recognize immediately that in many respects, Americans at the beginning of a new millennium succeeded beautifully, sometimes flawlessly. We have established justice, even if at times it seems prejudiced for or against a majority, and we have provided for the common defense with annual expenditures exceeding the spending of the rest of the free world, and we have valiantly attempted to promote the general welfare, even if occasionally we have missed the mark and advanced the opposite.

Overall, however, we've done pretty well, and I hope historians of the future will recognize our intent, if not applaud our efforts. At the risk of sounding defensive, I'm inclined to wonder if our future critics could do any better. I hope so despite reservations.

There is one portion of our democratic republic that seems perfectly logical, even beneficial, to current generations. This process is known by a number of descriptions, one often identified as federal assistance, a phrase that conveys a positive effort to meet the needs of a given group of citizens.

Yet another term, a bit more pejorative than the first, is federal giveaways, a phrase carrying a negative connotation.

A third description, this one getting terribly close to the nerve, is political slush fund, words which are used by political critics who seem more envious of the accrued benefits for their enemies than righteous, moralistic anger.

I hope when these future historians begin their research into 2001 America they will run across a series of press releases from the office of Missouri's senior U.S. senator, Christopher Bond, who until a few weeks ago headed several important committees, some of which dealt with the dispensing of funds designed to enhance Washington's assistance to its constituents.

Bond is now the ranking member of these panels and as such is entitled to many of the prerogatives he enjoyed as chairman. For this reason, the office of the senator sent several news releases, most of them on the same day, that announced projects approved in the lawmaker's home state amounting to millions of dollars, virtually all of which were earmarked for worthwhile projects sought by good, honest, God-fearing Missourians. These good folks begged and pleaded with our state's senior senator to secure various amounts from the U.S. Treasury to enable them to carry out their vision of improved services for constituents.

To say that Bond succeeded in this tactical effort would be an understatement. He succeeded beyond the expectations of many of his petitioners, although I'm sure there were those who preferred that their assistance checks would have larger or who are now kicking themselves for not asking for more.

If there are partisans who are now shaking their heads in disbelief that a relatively conservative Republican would engage in a multimillion-dollar federal giveaway, let me remind you that Democrats in similar positions have done exactly the same thing, often even more, and this dates back to the days when our beloved Harry Truman was securing Uncle Sam's dollars for bankrupt business ventures in the state, including some that today are politically opposed to federal aid.

Altogether, Bond secured an extra $219.6 million for state corporations, public projects, schools and universities, law enforcement agencies, transportation improvement, water and flood control, even landscaping programs, citizen transit, agricultural programs and institutions and a myriad of other desirable, even admirable, projects.

The senator was obviously pleased with his success, for his office distributed five news releases on these federal funding efforts in just one day. I have no way of knowing but I suspect some of the individuals contacted by the senator were grateful beyond belief, while others may have simple viewed his efforts as being a part of his job.

After all, what do we send our elected representatives and senators to Washington for if not to secure all the cash they can lay their hands on? U.S. Sen. Jean Carnahan is expected to become as big a rainmaker as her GOP opposite, and the same goes for all nine Missourians in the House of Representatives. They all have their instructions from back home: Produce federal largesse, or we'll replace you with someone promising more.

While Missouri's 11-member congressional delegation constitutes the primary players in this cash charade, the masterminds are those who conceive, plan, promote and condone ways to take part in Washington's annual budget giveaway programs. That's pretty much the rest of us. If it's not, then why aren't 5.6 million of us screaming robbery?

We're not yelling for a cop because our community, our public service agency or our special interest is either participating in a handout, has benefited in the past or hopes to secure similar help in the future.

Maybe we didn't realize it at the time, but ordinary citizens sanctioned this annual trillion-dollar shift of funds, distributed to all 50 states, in unequal amounts, when it first began. We forgot that what Washington gives it must first take away. We hope future historians uncover this little secret when they begin their study of America 2001.

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