Per diems & Legislature's size
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
With his news story “Pennsylvania legislators ring up $3.9 million in per diems” (Jan. 14 and TribLIVE.com), Brad Bumsted has again opened our eyes to the question raised every year: Why do we need so many legislators in Pennsylvania?
It is pretty obvious from the lists of top 10 House and Senate per diem recipients that something is totally out of control. The lists do not even mention others who may be reaping similar per diem benefits, but nevertheless, the problem exists and changes need to be made.
It is time to reduce the number of legislators in Harrisburg. Doing more with less might be the logical answer, because they're going to put a slip in for their work anyway. How about a 12-month work schedule? How about a reduction in offices?
There are many financial problems in Pennsylvania, as in many other states. Why don't the voters, the taxpayers, resolve this problem on Election Day? Time to rethink our priorities and justify the need for the overabundance of these people.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Choosing judges I
- Prevailing wage downsides I
- Choosing judges II
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Valid comparison?
- Fearful homogenization
- Eagles’ plight
- Forcing their beliefs
- ‘Knockout’ evil
- Nukes, not hoops