| rdfs:comment
| - Sometimes, reform isn't really reform. Sometimes, reform is too little, too late. Every politician wants to reform, but the devil, as they say, is in the details. During the debate late Tuesday (October, 2006) between Ed Rendell and Lynn Swann, both candidates wanted to reduce the size of the state legislature. This is critical, they believe, in order to save costs and encourage a citizen-legislature. Rendell even claimed to support term limits.
|
| abstract
| - Sometimes, reform isn't really reform. Sometimes, reform is too little, too late. Every politician wants to reform, but the devil, as they say, is in the details. During the debate late Tuesday (October, 2006) between Ed Rendell and Lynn Swann, both candidates wanted to reduce the size of the state legislature. This is critical, they believe, in order to save costs and encourage a citizen-legislature. Rendell even claimed to support term limits. But is downsizing the right answer? Has anyone ever considered the possibility that those same two goals could be reached by doing the opposite? That is, increasing the size of the legislature? It's always easier to cut down on the number of representatives and call it a day. (Rendell doesn't even want to touch this until after the next census in 2010). But fewer legislators means larger districts, which means more constituent casework, which means they'll need more staffers and offices, which may not reduce expenses at all. Larger districts are counterintuitive for a citizen-legislature. It would be harder for politicians to know and represent their constituents, or for the people to hold them accountable. Running for office would require more money, so candidates can get their message out, opening more doors for special-interest groups. The goal is to get ordinary citizens to serve the public. Ordinary citizens know what it's like in our state. We have the common sense to understand the issues. Ordinary citizens care about their neighborhoods. The only way to get them in office is to do three things: drastically cut the salary and perks (and eliminate pensions) for legislators, significantly increase the size of the legislature and reduce the duration of legislative sessions. None of this is new. New Hampshire is the only state in the country that has a larger legislature than Pennsylvania, but much larger. We have 50 senators and 203 representatives. New Hampshire has 24 senators, but 400 representatives. This is roughly one representative for every 3,000 people. The base pay for our legislators is $72,187.27 a year. Committee chairs and party leaders get even more. (Majority and minority leaders get $104,590.14.) They can qualify for a government pension at age 50 with as few as three years of service. New Hampshire legislators are only paid $200 every two years and receive no pensions of any kind. The only other benefits they get are exemptions from highway tolls. And while Pennsylvania's legislature secretly raised its pay from 16 to 54 percent last year, New Hampshire legislators would have to pass a constitutional amendment to raise their pay. Because districts are much smaller, New Hampshire legislators can really know their constituents. Neighbors truly elect their neighbors. Individuals get to serve their time and be done. It's not a professional career. Individuals are motivated by what they want to change, not the money. Campaigning in these districts are also nowhere near as expensive. Some candidates only spend a few hundred dollars in their election bids. Special interests have trouble buying votes when there are too many legislators to bribe who are not concerned about campaign contributions. If we cut down the size of our legislature, special interests would have the same problems. Special interests currently have it made in Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Foundation and Pennsylvanians Against Government Waste identified $3.7 billion in wasteful spending and corporate welfare in the 2005-2006 state budget, and $4.3 billion in the 2006-2007 state budget. This is accessible from the Commonwealth Foundation's Web site so ordinary people can see where our money goes. Reducing the duration of sessions would enable full-time teachers, lawyers, doctors and businessmen to serve part of the year and go back to being full-time teachers, lawyers, doctors and businessmen. They won't need to hold hearings to know how their action impacts the state - they would experience it directly. The Texas state legislature, for instance, only convenes once every two years, unless the governor calls a special session. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, is a full-time legislature that is one of the few to have a lame-duck session that meets after the election and before inauguration. Coincidently, many laws are passed during this time. Go figure. Shorter legislative sessions essentially give the politicians a deadline to produce results. It gives a disincentive for stall tactics. As protection against having tons of laws passed at the last minute, a waiting period can be enacted, as Lynn Swann has proposed, before the governor can sign anything. Arcane legislative rules are also a problem. When committees can prevent bills from being debated or reaching the floor, reform is often killed in the process. At the end of the day, we expect our legislators to vote and tackle the hard issues, not avoid them. The Nebraskan legislature once had a Senate and House of Representatives, but dissolved the latter during the 1930s. It did this, among other reasons, in order to prevent underhanded dealings during conference reports - where provisions no one agreed to where added to bills before final passage. The Pennsylvania legislature may not need to become unicameral, but it certainly should reduce backward rules. Out of all the problems facing the U.S. Congress, one benefit under Republican leadership (and one of the legacies of former Speaker Newt Gingrich) is that they have six-year term limits on committee chairs. This enables younger members of Congress to gain control of these powerful and influential positions. National Democrats don't have these rules in place. So when they talk of a need for a "new direction," they lack the credibility to deliver since committee chairs would not go to fresh reformers, but to incumbents who've been down there for decades. The Pennsylvania legislature should adopt similar rules and eliminate the old seniority system. The problems with Pennsylvania's legislature are a microcosm of the same issues facing the entire state: overbearing costs, underperforming services, which drive businesses and people to leave the state. The career politicians will attempt to distract us with their supposed accomplishments in hopes that we won't compare our state with others to realize how bad we're really doing.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)