Shrinking state House would be big gain
Share with others:
A state House committee approved a bill Tuesday to downsize that chamber by 50 seats, potentially saving Pennsylvania's budget tens of millions of dollars each year.
Don't count that money just yet. At the moment, the 16-8 committee vote is no more binding than that ol' parental response, "We'll see," when a kid asks for a BB gun for his birthday. But as one who has ranted for years that we need to downsize America's Largest Full-Time State Legislature, I'm heartened by any progress.
House Speaker Sam Smith, a Republican from Punxsutawney, poked his head out on this issue and so we can hope against six more weeks of procrastinating. A co-sponsor of the bill, Majority Leader Mike Turzai of Bradford Woods, tweeted that he'd like to schedule a vote by the entire 203-member chamber "soon."
"Soon," as any kid knows, is not much more binding than "we'll see." So to any citizen worried about where the state is going to find enough money for roads, bridges, schools, mass transit or anything else, I'd suggest getting on the phone to your state rep and saying that it's time for the General Assembly itself to do more with less.
Here's how to counter the three following arguments against downsizing:
1. "It would limit the people's access to representatives."
We'd still have 153 full-time state reps and 50 state senators if we, the people, approve this downsizing. That's still a big statehouse.
Pennsylvania is compared below to its peers, states with at least 10 million people. The first column is the number of representatives in the lower House, the second is the number of people each state lawmaker represents. I'll use the hypothetical, leaner figure of 153 representatives for Pennsylvania and rank the states accordingly.
California 80 465,674
Texas 150 167,637
Florida 120 156,678
New York 150 129,187
Ohio 99 116,530
Illinois 118 108,734
Pennsylvania 153 83,022
So, even after a downsizing, Pennsylvania would have the most lawmakers among the seven largest states and ours would represent the fewest constituents. Lawmakers in Arizona, New Jersey and Michigan also would continue representing more people, but why pad the list? The point is we would hardly be switching from a mansion to a condo.
2. "We won't really save money."
That's nuts. Total state funding for our Legislature works out to more than $1 million per lawmaker. Salaries, travel, per diems, district offices, staff, heat, phone, health care, pensions and the like all cost money. Yes, these new, larger districts would have about 20,000 more constituents, but not everyone would be calling at the same time, any more than people all show up for dessert together at Gullifty's.
Our Legislature historically has been at or near the top of the nation in paid staff, and it's clear from recent corruption trials they don't have enough to do. If they did, they wouldn't spend so much time politicking and getting themselves and their bosses indicted. Let's cut some loose.
3. "A smaller body will be less efficient."
The opposite is likely true. Speaker Smith has pointed to studies that show groups of more than 150 tend to be less efficient.
Certainly, the recent record of America's Largest Full-Time Legislature is no profile in productivity, unless you count getting an unconstitutional pay raise through after midnight.
I've often thought that if we'd only reduced the Legislature by one seat every time a lawmaker was convicted of a felony, we'd be right-sized by now. It's instructive that of the four top House leaders who orchestrated the illegal 2005 pay grab, one is in prison for corruption (Mike Veon), one is awaiting sentencing (John Perzel) and one is currently on trial (Bill DeWeese).
The fourth, Mr. Smith, is the reformer behind the downsizing bill.
Let's hear it for redemption. To get this constitutional change, the legislation will have to be approved for two consecutive sessions and then authorized by voters in a referendum. Pass House Bill 153.
First Published January 26, 2012 12:00 am
