THOMASON: FARM BUREAU STUDY REVEALS FLAWS IN AMENDMENT 7

A Bootheel state legislator is touting a Farm Bureau study of Amendment 7 as proof the proposal is flawed and should be defeated Nov. 8.

Farm Bureau would much rather be on Mel Hancock's side in the Amendment 7 debate, said Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett.

But, this group did an independent study "and basically drew the same conclusions that Jim Moody's study did," he said.

Farm Bureau is a conservative organization that tends to side more with Republicans than Democrats, Thomason said.

Yet, when it conducted its own study in response to inquiries from members, it projected about the same impact on state budget cuts Moody did, between $900 million and $1.4 billion.

Moody, a former state budget director under Gov. John Ashcroft, was hired by opponents of Amendment 7 last spring to analyze its impact.

Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan has used the Moody report in his campaign against the amendment.

Thomason argued the study basically places Farm Bureau in the same camp as Carnahan.

"If there was any way they could avoid siding with Gov. Carnahan, they would have done it," Thomason said.

State Farm Bureau President Charles Kruse said his organization of 82,000 families hasn't taken a formal position on Amendment 7.

But, he said, Farm Bureau conducted the study because members were confused and questioned the amendment's meaning.

"We're pretty comfortable after our analysis that we are talking in the range of $1 billion in cuts," Kruse said. "What we have tried to do is be an honest broker of information and provide an objective analysis to our membership."

Besides the Farm Bureau analysis, Thomason said Republican U.S. Sen. John Danforth's decision to co-chair with Carnahan the committee opposing Amendment 7 is further evidence the proposal is seriously flawed.

Thomason said he hasn't found a responsible group that has done its own examination "that does not agree with the governor" that Amendment 7 would be at least a $1 billion cut and "is going to be absolutely wrong for Missouri."

Rep. David Schwab, R-Jackson, a longtime active member of Farm Bureau, said the group's analysis "is an eye-opener to a lot of us."

He was active in Farm Bureau's effort 14 years ago to help put the first Hancock Amendment on the ballot.

Schwab hasn't taken a position on the amendment and said he has gotten calls from both sides.

But, he admits the Farm Bureau study isn't biased and does give some credibility to other groups who have warned of massive cuts.

"What still concerns me is that it's so poorly written I don't think any of us will know what is really in it until there is a court test," Schwab said.

Schwab and Kruse agree Farm Bureau members favor having people vote on most tax increases.

Although Farm Bureau hasn't taken a position, Kruse didn't rule out a formal position later.

As a grass-roots organization, Kruse said Farm Bureau carries out the wishes of its members and if enough members decide the organization should formally oppose it, action would probably be taken.

"As president of Farm Bureau, one of the greatest obligations I have is to make sure we reflect where our members are," Kruse noted.

Thomason suggested that anyone undecided how to vote should look at the studies that have been done on its impact, adding:

"I don't see how any intelligent person will support it."