MISSOUIR WATCH: DO WE WANT QUICK-FIX GOVERNMENT?

Even when we momentarily forget the unexcelled opportunities of these United States, we Americans are, by our very nature, an optimistic people. We still live in a country that is relatively young, one blessed by nature with an abundance of resources, and the American Dream, despite the naysayers among us, is still realistic enough to be attainable, at least to the vast majority of us.

It is this optimism, which visitors from foreign countries and cultures are quick to recognize, that permits us to attack our problems with bromidic solutions that appear to be logical answers to complicated questions. In recent times, we have attacked the dilemma of arrogant, unresponsive legislatures with a seemingly logical solution of term limits, and we have bought into demands for balanced budget amendments as the logical answer to out-of-control federal spending and plain old politics-as-usual profligacy.

If we can't restore Congress to its one-time Golden Age, whenever that was, we will simply limit tenure to a brief period of time, sufficient only for understanding the process but totally insufficient to permit experience to be downloaded into meaningful public service. As for budget deficits and a nightmarish public debt, we will simply set an arbitrary figure beyond which no one can go, although we will certainly affix a sufficient number of escape clauses to allow avoidance.

The quick fix of American politics is a well-traveled route that has been followed almost since the days of the American Revolution. The syndrome has no less appeal today that it had back in the days of the Continental Congress, when members sought to appease dissenting state legislatures by enacting an escape clause called the Tenth Amendment, whereby Washington promised to accede to the will of the states in all matters save those that were agreeable to provincial colonial governments. Anyone who believes the Tenth is a reinforcement of states' rights simply hasn't read a shred of history for more than two centuries.

With a commendable motive of preserving the fiscal integrity of the nation, one of the most recent quick fixes to be hatched in Washington is the plan to provide block grants to states for programs that Congress is unable, politically speaking, to control. Because our elected representatives and senators scurry for cover whenever they are faced with difficult, unpopular solutions, Washington is now considering lump payments to the states for welfare assistance, aid to dependent children programs and Medicaid, the program that supplies medical care for millions of indigent Missourians and Americans.

In effect, those people who beg us every two or six years to elect them to public office so they may exert the kind of leadership that will make "America great again" are now saying they want to abandon their responsibility to fund programs that the vast majority deem to be essential for the least fortunate among us---because our leaders cannot control their spending habits. What happened to all that leadership we were promised during the last campaign? Where is that strength of character the candidates told us they possessed in copious amounts when they solicited our faith and our vote?

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate appear on the verge of approving block grants for the states in most of the broad welfare programs now in existence. This abrogation of responsibility is being further encouraged by many, if not most, of the elected officials within our own state. After having spoken to a majority of the legislative leadership in Jefferson City, I am secure in saying that virtually all of them want a simple block grant from Washington to carry out most of the functions of the state's Department of Social Services. The reasons for this support are not hard to find: Missourians feel they can be more efficient than their federal counterparts and most feel there are too many rules and regulations accompanying existing social programs. They are no doubt joined by a sizable majority of their constituents.

All right, for the sake of argument, let's suppose Missouri becomes the beneficiary of block grants and state agency personnel are suddenly confronted with drawing new rules and regulations and projects that are supposed to meet the particular needs of the Show-Me State. Does Missouri, with a growing percentage of families living below the poverty level, quickly meet this demand or do we begin to downsize other programs to meet the more pressing need of providing food and medicine to the very poor? Scaling back programs for the poor will not make the poor disappear, yet if Missouri increases its welfare aid, it may soon find new residents from less generous states.

Placing the problem within a contemporary framework, how does Missouri deal with a temporary flood, a problem that has faced Jefferson City two out of the last three years, if its welfare assistance funding from the federal government is frozen and static? Our state has historically been less generous with the poor than some of our wealthier per capita neighbors but we have relied on minimum federal service requirements to meet many of the health-care requirements of the indigent. Without these requirements, the state would probably opt not to provide these services, which means that we begin to restrict access to services the more affluent take for granted.

I have yet to receive a satisfactory, or even a rational, response to these questions from any state official I've talked to in recent weeks. The only answer that seems to come to the minds of most of these officials is that somehow the problems I've raised will be handled by the folks over at the Social Services department. These are fine, competent people, but they are administrators, not officials selected by the voters to set the policies of our state.

And what, I have been asking in recent weeks, will be the formula for distributing these proposed federal block grants? Will it be based on need of the individual states or will funds be allocated to those states that have done the least or the most to solve their social problems? In either event, Missouri will probably lose its current share of matching funds.

Quick fixes may be immediately gratifying, but they seldom offer the kinds of solutions that resolve real problems.

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