LETTERS: AMENDMENT 7: PRO AND CON; CON: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH; WE HAVE TO PAY FOR STATE SERVICES

To the editor:

The letter from my friend Charles E. Stiver in your Oct. 11 issue prompts this response.

The proponents of Amendment 7 must have slept through the 1980s, a decade during which Missouri agencies learned very well "how to spend more frugally and wisely." Because of the revenue limits imposed by Hancock I and the reluctance of the governor and General Assembly to propose tax increases to the people, public service agencies have had to learn to operate with fewer resources. When your state has ranked in the bottom five in terms of taxation for over a decade, there are no frills left to cut.

Most of us who are opposed to Amendment 7 would have no problem with a simple "vote on all future tax increases" amendment. But Hancock II is not that simple. Amendment 7 pretends to be a way for people to decide on taxes, but it has the potential to overrule the vote of the people on two previous revenue decisions (Proposition A -- the motor fuel tax and road building plan, and Proposition C -- the one-cent sales tax for public schools). Furthermore, by making state bonds impossible to repay and therefore impossible to sell in the bond market, it destroys Missouri's good credit rating and overturns the vote of the people on Amendment 4 (the bond issue for prisons and higher education facilities) passed in August of this year.

Hancock II is a scam. Its supporters are not telling the voters that it seeks to overturn decisions already made by statewide vote of the people. Its supporters are not telling people what they will lose, or how they will damage Missouri's present economy and its future development if they approve Amendment 7. In response to serious questions, its supporters offer only some vague promise that "the legislature and governor can fix it later." That is not a reasonable way to make important political decisions.

Even if Mr. Stiver were correct, and the voters eventually were to restore cuts made as a result of Hancock II, the damage would already have been done. For example, just one year of a one-third reduction in state aid would totally disrupt every public college and university in the state, and cause serious academic and financial hardship to over 200,000 students at those institutions. Its effect on the public schools and other "people-intensive" agencies like the Highway Patrol and Corrections would be equally devastating, virtually overnight.

I urge voters not to be deceived by the simple-sounding and appealing message of Hancock II. There is no free lunch. If we Missourians want crime prevention, education, roads, economic development and other services, we have to pay for them. Missourians presently have adequate services at a very low cost in comparison with other states and taxpayers have the very effective protection of Hancock I to keep taxes in line with personal income.

ART L. WALLHAUSEN

Cape Girardeau