VOTERS NEED HANCOCK II INFORMATION

Hancock II, the proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution, is like mercury. Its aim is to let voters approve any hefty increases in government spending in the state that must be paid for with taxes or fees.

Like any other plan, Hancock II has its staunch supporters and its avid opponents. The question for voters is what to make of all the claims and counterclaims.

There is -- and their ought to be -- healthy skepticism among taxpayers when officials whose job it is to spend tax money start making exaggerated claims about the likely impact of a proposal like Hancock II. Many taxpayers scoffed when they read and heard recently that the Joint Committee on Legislative Research in Jefferson City had decided the constitutional amendment would require state and local spending cuts ranging from $1 billion to $5 billion.

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it starts adding up.

More than that, the committee decided to put the spending-cut disclaimer right on the November ballot. Many voters consider such a claim to be a scare tactic designed to frighten them into voting against the amendment. Voters, records from past elections show, don't like to be threatened. They often will react to such a challenge by voting in such a way that officials are forced to make good on their threats. In most cases, the threatened cuts never happen. This gives voters the idea that threats are just threats.

Beyond the threat of billion-dollar spending cuts if Hancock II passes, however, is the need to find out what really would happen. In a state with a budget of more than $12 billion, a billion dollars would hurt, and a $5 billion forced cut in spending would hurt a lot. Moreover, there are possible secondary effects of the amendment, such as limiting or prohibiting the sale of the $250 million statewide bond issue approved by voters in August.

Is it likely that voters will get any assurances about the real impact of Hancock II before the November vote? Partisans in favor of the amendment will continue to play to the popular theme among taxpaying voters that government needs to be reined in. Opponents of the amendment will continue to cite disastrous effects of forcing spending cuts, sometimes in areas that need every nickel being spent.

If voters want a comparison, they have only to look to proposals for national health care reform. Clear-headed representatives and senators in Congress have concluded that passage of a bad health reform measure is worse than no reform at all. More than that, there are many signs that health reform is already occurring on many fronts because of the pressure to avoid a government-imposed system that could be devastating to health care providers as well as consumers.

It is possible such a rationale applies to Hancock II. Yes, taxpayers and politicians alike agree that government spending must be checked. But is a plan that could cut state spending by as much as 40 percent (Hancock proponents say the figure is closer to 3 percent) the right way to get the job done?

Hancock II is named for U.S. Rep. Mel Hancock from Springfield. He authored the original Hancock bill several years ago that won voter approval and subsequently has been riddled by court decisions sought by governmental units who thought the voter-imposed controls were unfair. Hancock has the right idea for getting the message to city councils, school boards, county commissions and the General Assembly that taxpayers want to have more say in how tax dollars are spent.

But voters deserve to know more about what the impact of Hancock II would really be. And they need to know before they vote in November. The challenge is to find a way to provide accurate information that supporters and opponents of Hancock II can agree on. Otherwise the proposed amendment is as much of a crap shoot as health care reforms floating around Congress.