| READ THE FINE PRINT (First published in 1994 in the Farmington Press-Leader; parts later republished in the Neighborhood Journal; posted in toto with Preface and Epilogue 2 July 2001) PREFACE--- In the early 1980s, the citizens of Missouri passed a Constitutional amendment commonly referred to as the “Hancock Amendment”. In a nutshell, Hancock required that the State must at all times have a balanced budget, with surpluses being refunded to the people, and that all tax increases and bonds, local, county, and state, must be approved by the voters. By the early 1990s, local jurisdictions found a loophole in the law in the form of fees – user fees could be assessed without voter approval. Many jurisdictions abused this exception by veiling tax increases as user fees. In an attempt to close this loophole, Hancock II was proposed. Under Hancock II, all fee increases would be subject to voter approval as well. When I wrote this column, I still did not have a title. I found my title, a play on words, in this column. Throughout my formative years, my father always told not to make hasty decisions. "Read the fine print," he would say, and still does say. Sadly, though many people I have talked to do not read the fine print when it comes to voting. Of all the decisions we are required to make, who and what we for vote can have long-lasting and sometimes costly repercussions. First case in point. Last April's "gambling referendum." I must admit, I thought the issue was whether or not riverboat gambling should be allowed in Missouri. It turns out the real issue was whether or not games of chance should be allowed on the riverboats that we were going to get regardless of the outcome of the April vote. Had I known the real issued, I would have voted differently. "Fool me once, shame on you." Second case in point. Proposition A. This bond issue was sold to the voters by the school boards, educators, et. al. as necessary for maintaining our schools, as the monies generated by the bonds would be used for capital improvements to our schools, and without these monies our schools will crumble around us. What the educators failed to mention was that these bond monies could also be used for capital improvements to prisons, and that if the state could not make the bond payments, the state can raise our property taxes without notice to prevent default. In other words, the state can raise our taxes and we can't do anything about it, as we gave them the power to do so. Many people I have talked to who voted for Proposition A would have voted against it had they known the whole truth about it. Alas, like most voters, they didn't read the fine print. "Fool me twice, shame on me." The latest misinformation being thrust upon the citizens of Missouri is with respect to the proposed Hancock II Amendment. The government, educators, school boards, etc. are predicting catastrophe if Hancock II passes. (These are the same groups who deceived us into passing Proposition A.) The only thing the anti-Hancock forces have not propagandized is that the passage of Hancock II is an apocalyptic sign of the end of the world. What are the governmental entities afraid of? That they will actually have to have enough courage to ask us before they take any more of our money? Hancock II may mean the loss of some revenue. However, was that revenue ever necessary? We spend more now on our schools than we ever did; are our schools better than they were? Are students today receiving a better education than their parents did? Are our streets, sewers, public buildings, etc. better today than 20 years ago? Rationing of resources may be the best thing that could happen to that irrationality we call government. There is an old axiom in business, "Scarcity begets efficiency." If the doomsdayers are correct, the passage of Hancock II will make taxpayers dollars more scarce. A scarcity of dollars will force all governmental agencies to reevaluate themselves, and will necessitate elimination of unnecessary expenditures for survival. The survivors will be more efficient, more innovative, and more responsive to the needs of the taxpayer. EPILOGUE--Hancock II did not pass. However, after the Hancock II scare, many jurisdictions became much more cautious about raising fees. |
| "THE FINE PRINT" The musings of Michael Schrader |
| "The Fine Print" © 2001 by Michael Schrader |