For several years, I have referred repeatedly to the 253-member Pennsylvania General Assembly as "America's Largest Full-Time State Legislature."

That much is true. Every once in a while, though, I added "Most Expensive" to the description, and I just learned that California lavished more on its statehouse than Pennsylvania in 2005.

California has almost three times as many residents as Pennsylvania, but I want to be fair. I'd send apologies to each of Pennsylvania's 203 House members and 50 senators, but I don't enjoy their mailing privileges. So instead I'll offer more detail on Harrisburg fat, and the long-shot proposal from two freshman lawmakers to cut legislative costs by 20 percent.

Rep. Matt Smith, a Democrat from Mt. Lebanon, and Randy Vulakovich, a Shaler Republican, have introduced a bill they say could save $66 million. That would make tax relief easier but, like most money-saving ideas in Harrisburg, it has slim chance of success. Still, let's go ahead and pretend we have representative democracy that will accept sound proposals, and show why cutting legislative costs should be easier than falling off a lobbyist.

First, as mentioned, we have the second-most-expensive statehouse in America. And as a percentage of the total state budget, no state spends more money on its lawmaking body than Pennsylvania.

We know this because the National Conference of State Legislatures says so. Based on figures from 2005, NCSL ranks Harrisburg's shameful extravagancy thusly:

• First among states in legislative spending as a percentage of general government spending (0.53 percent). The most frugal state in this regard is our neighbor, Ohio (0.09 percent).

• Second in total legislative spending.

• Third in legislative spending per citizen, $23.01, behind only Rhode Island, $23.86, and Alaska, $47.52.

• Second in size of permanent legislative staff, 2,947, behind only New York, with 3,077. (New York has about 7 million more residents to worry about.)

There's no reason to believe the budget can't be comfortably cut by 20 percent. Rep. Mark Mustio, a Republican from Moon, has a bill to reduce the number of lawmakers that much, taking the House to 161 members and the Senate to 40, which would still leave Pennsylvania with dozens more lawmakers than nearby states of similar size, Ohio and Illinois.

But it wouldn't take shrinking the statehouse to find $66 million, at least not in the first year. It can be found in the General Assembly's loose change, the walking-around money that leaders dole out. That account grows each year, and stood at $215 million a year ago.

Mr. Smith, 35, and his allies began circulating a letter to representatives Tuesday to gather support for the smaller legislative budget. They'll need 102 votes in the House, but he says 50 or 60 representatives signing the letter "would be a strong indication of bipartisan support."

Of course, the Legislature couldn't move any more slowly on this without slipping into reverse. The House Speaker's Commission on Legislative Reform recommended last June a 10 percent cut in the legislative budget and a cap on the leadership accounts. Neither happened.

As the muckraking Web site, Democracy Rising Pennsylvania, points out, our embarrassment of lawmakers doesn't mean more gets done. In the past 14 months, lawmakers introduced more than 3,500 bills, but only 118 laws were enacted and 39 of those were budget bills.

There was a time when citizens' hopes were higher. After the Legislature made its illegal midterm pay grab in 2005, the populace went into semi-revolt and about a fifth of the statehouse turned over in 2006. Old leaders were dumped. New ones came in. There has been some reform.

But the torches have gone out and the pitchforks have been put away. We, the people, can't quite manage the electoral equivalent of walking and chewing gum at the same time. In this presidential election year, voters are justifiably focused on who we send to Washington to inherit two wars, a sinking dollar, a blizzard of housing foreclosures and a national debt of $9.3 trillion that grows $1.4 billion per day.

So Harrisburg can drift. In Western Pennsylvania alone, 21 lawmakers will enjoy a free ride back to the best job they'll ever have, with no opponents in either the primary or the general election.

Cutting costs in Harrisburg is less important than selecting the next president, but just because you're worried about health care, college tuition and the mortgage doesn't mean you stop taking out the garbage. Pennsylvanians could use $66 million.