From Wednesday through May 15, the second regular session of the 86th Missouri General Assembly will address virtually every ache, pain and complaint of this state's 5.1 million citizens. The agenda for this year's session, to a large extent already determined by hundreds of pre-filed bills in both the House and Senate, will resemble a thousand letters to Ann Landers, Dear Abby and Geraldo, mirroring the needs, wants, desires, concerns and problems as well as the hopes and aspirations of an entire state.

While legislative leaders usually start a new session with a long list of priorities that have been chosen on the basis of individual and collective judgment, it is rare for a session not to experience unexpected problems that throw a monkey wrench into what appears to be a rather helter-skelter schedule but which actually is more finely tuned than the public suspects. Even those so-called final-minute decisions, which lawmakers greet with anguished cries because of limited time, are usually well planned and structured by the leadership.

It would seem this year's session has a full menu for the next nearly four and one-half months, and in this case appearances are not deceiving. The agenda for this 1992 session is lengthy, made all the longer by certain events of the past 12 months. In recent sessions it has become habit to observe that the legislative agenda will be curtailed by a "critical lack of funds," and the 1992 session will be no exception. State government is experiencing a shortage of spare change, despite the fact the Missouri Department of Revenue expects to collect more than $9 billion in the next 12 months, an amount that includes funds from all sources including Uncle Sam.

To the average taxpayer, this would seem to be an adequate amount to run the state and its hundreds of programs, with plenty left over to finance the favorite project of every citizen. But the state does not have the luxury of using all available revenue to fund Missourians' pet programs and ending those that are proportionately too expensive. For starters, the Constitution of Missouri requires that the state spend the first millions it collects to pay past debts that are due and payable, plus all the additional bills for interest on this borrowed money. Despite the contention of some officials, Missouri has plenty of public debt to service, and this year's budget will pay out nearly $200 million just to meet previous spending projects. These past obligations have first priority.

Approximately 6% of the state's total general revenue will be appropriated not by the General Assembly but by federal district courts in St. Louis and Kansas City. Many state officials in years past have pretended this money was not even a part of the general revenue fund, but this is smoke-and-mirror bookkeeping that defies the laws of both accounting and logic. The money must be paid, regardless of the state's ability to finance any other activity it has undertaken, and to argue that it isn't a part of Missouri's annual budget process simply isn't reasonable.

Add to the desegregation funds dealt off the top the additional federally-mandated appropriations for new Medicaid programs and other health and welfare assistance projects, and Missourians can begin to understand the level of frustration that permeates each new legislative session as it seeks to inaugurate programs and projects favored by constituents. It's small wonder the average Show-~Me citizen feels left out. He is. But so are his elected officials in Jefferson City.

Much of the frustration felt by citizens stems from the haunting feeling their needs are being overlooked or simply ignored in the Capitol. At least some of this frustration is unfair, since a vast majority of the 163 members of the House of Representatives and 34 members of the state Senate do respond to constituent needs and proposals. The difficulty lies not with lawmaker indifference but with inadequate revenue to institute change. It should be noted that more good legislators leave public service because of this frustration than for any other single reason.

This year's session faces an increased degree of fiscal frustration, starting with higher funding demands to meet desegregation plans in Kansas City and extending through a persistent recession that reduces state spending growth at a time of increased needs. The frustration extends to critical funding shortages for local school districts and state-supported colleges and universities, as well as other essential health and assistance programs. After the overwhelming, more than 2-to-1 defeat of Proposition B in November, a large number of lawmakers reached the conclusion that citizens will not approve any new revenue in today's economic climate, and that attempts to secure additional funds even for such essentials as public and higher education are useless and politically hazardous.

Despite these problems, we find an amazing degree of enthusiasm among legislators for this year's session. Our state legislators are anything but well paid, barely making minimum wage when out-of-session work for constituents is included, but they remain for the most part eager toward and dedicated to public service.

If our legislators have a responsibility to work for state problem solutions and we believe they do then citizens also have an obligation. Voters who demand additional services and programs and then vote for candidates who promise no new taxes in order to get elected are not meeting their share of the obligation. Worse, they are adding to the problem by assuring that Missouri remains just another typically mediocre state with little hope for anything better in the future.