Thin the Harrisburg herd: Slash the size, pay and perks of the Pennsylvania General Assembly
Reducing the size and cost of the state Legislature would go a long way in ending the sense of entitlement and privilege, driven by lavish pay and perks, that defines the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
A Trib study found taxpayers would save $8.2 million in legislative salary, pension, health-care, travel and per-diem costs if the Legislature were 20 percent smaller. House Speaker Sam Smith, R-Punxsutawney, has reintroduced a bill to do just that. Shrinking the House from 203 members to 153 would reduce lawmakers' ranks from 253 to 203 overall.
But that should be just one of Pennsylvania's steps away from having America's largest full-time legislature and toward having a part-time “citizens' legislature,” one that would meet just a few times a year and require fewer staff members than the 2,700 now burdening taxpayers, as the Commonwealth Foundation's Nate Benefield suggests.
Pennsylvania needs to not just thin its legislative herd but to make lawmaking less lucrative, too. State lawmakers' $83,802 base salary, pensions averaging $31,314, health insurance premiums that cost them 1 percent of their salary, taxpayer-funded personal transportation and $160 per diems that require no receipts largely explain why the Legislature is full of career politicians protecting their power, pay and perks.
It all fuels the legislative mentality that has made Pennsylvania the State of Corruption. And it's past time to begin reining in that mindset by reducing the size of what to many truly is a corrupt criminal organization.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.