Lowman Henry weighs in on the House State Government Committee's upcoming hearing on reducing the size of the legislature. He doesn't say much on the merits of the proposal (though we did a policy brief on it two years ago), but remarks that it seems "disingenuous" to hold hearings this late in the session on a proposal that has been sitting in the committee for months.
I think the use of metaphors from Greek mythology has inspired the committee chair.
Yesterday was a big day for reform issues:
The push for a better Open Records law included a news conference and a potential vote on Wednesday. (More on the Open Records from tne PA Newspaper Association and from the PA Freedom of Information Coalition).
Meanwhile the House voted against a petition to discharge a bill on reducing the size of the legislature from committee (Roll Call Vote). Here is our policy brief on reducing the size of the legislature, and even though we think a smaller legislature is no panacea, the lack of action on any reform measure has made discharge petitions necessary.
Also rejected yesterday was a bill to authorize a commission to study the state constitution (Roll Call Vote), though many, including groups pushing for a state constitutional convention, felt this was a stall tactic which would create "insider" driven constititional reform (if any).
Following these events, Brett Lieberman comments "Reform? We thought you said 'disinform'"
Brad Bumsted on the Speaker's Reform Commission hearing on reducing the size of the legislature.
While an NCSL analyst testified to the fact that Pennsylvania has the 2nd most legislative staff, ranked 2nd in total spending on the legislature, and ranked 3rd in the cost of the legislature per capita - $23 per person - she concluded that "Based on several studies, there's no clear indication that reducing the size of a legislature would reduce costs".
That is essentially the findings of our study: Potential Effects of Reducing the Size of the General Assembly. While a smaller legislature may have some benefits, reducing the level of professionalization would be more effective, both in terms of cost of the legislature itself, but also toward reducing spending and taxes for pork projects. This includes:
The Senate State Government Committee rejected, by a 2 to 9 vote, reporting John Eichelberger's constitutional amendment on legislative term limits, to the full Senate (Sen. Eichelberger discussed his proposal at our March luncheon).
This followed reporting a handful of other bills (including legislation to eliminate lame duck sessions and reducing the size of the General Assembly) often on the stated grounds of "moving the process forward to the full body", even if individual members did not support that legislation. This standard did not apply to term limits.
The Commonwealth Foundation, along with other organizations, called for reporting the bills before the committee in order to give the full Senate an opportunity to consider them, and to give them a full public airing. Two of the bills cited in our letter - on initiative and referendum and on redistricting - will be tabled to have committee hearing on.
Brad Bumsted on proposals to reduce wasteful spending with the legislature, as well as other reforms.
Noted is Sen. Jane Orie's proposal which would limit "pinstripe patronage" - the awarding of "consulting" work to relatives, friends, and the person managing your farm. Any such contract would require competitive bidding and information be made publicly available. Hmmm, which state ageny might this affect?
Brian O'Neill of the Post-Gazette attempts to make the case that Pennsylvania should reduce the number of state legislators. His reasoning - we should be like the other big states. The question he doesn't answer is: why?
Of the states Mr. O'Neill lists as big states (all of whom have more residents per lawmaker than Pennsylvania), only two - Florida and Texas - are states Pennsylvania should look to as models of effective government. Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan are similar to Pennsylvania in their tax burdens and regulatory environment - and likewise in their lack of population and economic growth, while California and New York are among the highest taxed and most regulated states in the nation. These are hardly models of effective legislatures.
In our study on legislative size, we looked at the outcomes of state policy we are most concerned with - lower government spending, lower tax burdens, and greater economic freedom. None of these were affected much by state legislative size. However, there are several other reforms that would have a meaningful effect on the process and outcomes of public policy.
Paul Carpenter editorial in The Morning Call on why we need a strong lobbyist and regulation and disclosure law before we consider shrinking the size of the General Assembly.
Editorial in the Press Enterprise Online on reducing the legislature. While they use figures from my testimony, they fail to note that the crux of our position is that more substantive reforms are needed to ensure that reducing the size of the General Assembly results in a reduction in spending on the legislature and to create greater transparency and accountability by lawmakers.
If you prefer audio podcast to the text version, you can listen to my testimony on reducing the size of the General Assembly.
(Note: the file is 2MB and the questions from the committee are barely audible).
The entire hearing will also be airing on PCN over the next few days.
