Down size the PA state Legislature?

[12th Doctor]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_368261.html

More bucks, fewer seats?

   
Web Links

Capitol Cash Grab series


Discussions

Discuss this article
What do you think about this? Share your opinion on the discussion board.


Tools Print this article
 E-mail this article
 Subscribe to this paper
 Larger / Smaller Text
 
 
By Brad Bumsted and Debra Erdley
Sunday, August 28, 2005


The free-spending ways of the nation's largest full-time General Assembly may have lit the fuse that could knock it down in size.
Spurred by public outrage over the Legislature's 16 to 34 percent pay hike and the disclosure of a $135 million leadership slush fund, state Rep. Paul Clymer, R-Bucks County, said last week that the state House Local Government Committee will air proposals to slash the size of the 253-member General Assembly.

Obviously, it is still a long shot, said political scientist and pollster Terry Madonna, who has studied the Legislature for three decades. But Madonna, who is director of polling at Franklin & Marshall College, said the environment in Harrisburg is volatile and unpredictable.

"There is enormous pressure on legislators. There is nothing I've seen in 30 years of covering politics that even comes close to that," Madonna said. "This has no rival in terms of intensity."

Public outrage ignited in July when Pennsylvania legislators raised their base pay to $81,050 for rank-and-file members and $89,155 for committee chairmen. With a cost-of-living increase after the November 2006 election, lawmakers are likely to receive several thousand dollars on top of that base.

Some analysts aren't sure the public outrage will translate into legislative action.

"They are not going to reduce the size of the Legislature," said Joseph DiSarro, chairman of the political science department at Washington & Jefferson College in Washington County. "If they try to reduce the size of the Legislature, they will come into conflict with their own members, various interest groups and constituents."

Clymer, the Local Government Committee chairman, is awaiting proposals, promising they will not die quietly as many previous attempts have.

"I will give this an airing," he vowed, referring to proposals being drafted by state Reps. Jesse Stairs, R-Westmoreland, and Thomas Caltagirone, D-Berks County.

Caltagirone's bill calls for 127 legislators; Stairs wants 191.

Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jublelirer, R-Altoona, said he won't block discussion of the issue.

"It's something we need to talk about this fall. ... I think it's right to raise the profile (of the issue). I think it is right to consider it. I wouldn't rule it out," he said. Jublelirer said he's personally conflicted weighing cost savings against less representation for rural areas.

Caltagirone said his model could slash the amount the Legislature spends on itself and its overhead by $200 million, or about $16 for every man, woman and child in Pennsylvania.

The Legislature's budget for the year that began July 1 is $432.2 million. That means it is spending $882 a minute for salaries, benefits, travel, dining, staff, computer services and associated operating costs. But it also has a $135 million slush fund the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review recently highlighted.

That means more than a half billion tax dollars cannot be used to reduce property or business taxes, finance cash-strapped mass transit systems in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, repair crumbling roads and bridges or fill the gap in state Medicaid programs that recently forced families with disabled children to take on a second insurance premium.

"There are no controls on (legislative spending)," said Michael Young, a retired Penn State professor who works as a consultant and pollster. "One of the problems is accountability. There is not enough information about what they are spending money on, and how much they are spending."

In part, that is by design. The Legislature is not subject to the state's public records act. Nor is it subject to audit by the state's chief fiscal watchdog, Auditor General Jack Wagner.

Reformers have failed to shrink the General Assembly for decades.

Former state Sen. Allen Kukovich, now Gov. Ed Rendell's regional director in the Pittsburgh area, cosponsored measures to downsize the Legislature every session for 27 years. Kukovich said the measures only drew support after the Legislature gave itself a raise, and even then the bills died in committee.

It has been 131 years since the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1874 increased the size of the General Assembly in an effort to make it harder for special interests to buy votes. The measure doubled the size of the House from 100 to 200 and increased the Senate from 33 to 50 members. An additional 3 members were added to the House in the first half of the 20th century.

Stairs acknowledged the renewed effort to cut the Legislature's size is no sure bet.

"But right now a lot of legislators, including the leadership and the rank and file, are looking for a way to get out of the mess they're in," he said.

Political analyst Joseph Sabino Mistick, a Duquesne University law professor, said Stairs may be right.

"There is a feeling out there that some type of reform is necessary and may be possible," Mistick said. "The issue can fade away into the distance, or the whole thing can be fed by the participants in the spectacle."

The only ways to reduce the size of the Legislature would be to convene a constitutional convention, or for lawmakers to approve a bill in two consecutive sessions, then pass it on to a statewide voter referendum.

Robert Strauss, a Carnegie Mellon University professor of economics and public policy, said Pennsylvanians pay a price beyond the legislative largesse they underwrite for the General Assembly.

Strauss, who advises policy makers on tax issues across the nation, has watched Pennsylvania struggle with tax reform for 26 years. He's watched homegrown businesses move out and heard outsiders say they'd move in, if only the state would update its property tax assessment and business tax laws.

He attributes the stalemate to systemic problems with the Legislature.

"Nobody has seriously tried to make the General Assembly smaller or tried to get public disclosure of public documents," he said. "We are where we are because we the voting public has been unable to try to figure out a way to do things differently."

Some voters are looking at how state government operates elsewhere.

Pennsylvania lawmakers like to point to New York and California, both of which compensate lawmakers as full-time professional employees. But both of the states have more people than Pennsylvania yet get by with fewer legislators: 120 in California and 212 in New York.

Harry Meyer, of South Fayette, is among those who said the pay raise has opened their eyes to lawmakers' excesses.

"I travel to New Hampshire, and the last time I was there, legislators were paid $100 a year. They have 400 legislators (actually 424). That's $40,000 for the whole Legislature. That's half the salary of one Pennsylvania legislator," said Meyer, a retired state employee who tends an apple orchard on his Allegheny County farm.

Historian Paul Beers, a Harrisburg-based author, disagrees that state legislators should be reduced in number.

He defends the General Assembly and argues that "bigger is better" in state legislatures. With smaller districts, legislators can provide better constituent service, Beers said.

If the General Assembly's size is reduced, "we'd be selling our heritage for a few shekels," he said.

Kukovich counters that a large legislature makes it easier for legislative leaders to disenfranchise rank and file lawmakers. "And when you disenfranchise the rank and file, you disenfranchise the people," he said.

Mistick warned against too much tinkering.

"If you make the Legislature too small, it could fall under tighter control of the moneyed interests," Mistick said.

House Minority Leader H. William DeWeese, D-Greene County, opposes downsizing the Legislature.

"Small counties like Rep. DeWeese's Greene County (population 40,000) would very seldom be able to send a homegrown advocate to the state Capitol," DeWeese spokeswoman Barbara Grill said.

State Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, said he fears cutting the size of the Legislature could create "an institutional Republican majority" in the state House.

But these days Frankel isn't discounting anything.

"It's something I'm willing to talk about. It's probably something we should have discussed in conjunction with the pay raise," he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the PA state Republican Party trying to commit suicide?  If this goes through, I know what is going to happen.  They are going to eliminate rural seats and then expand urban seats out into the suburbs, thus making the legislature solidly Democratic until the next realignment.  What in the Hell is thier problem?

[Keystone Phil]

The State House can appear to be too big but it's fine. The Senate is perfect. Not only would it be bad for us politically to down size but it would probably hurt our state government, too. Keep it as is (which I'm sure they'll decide to stick with in the end).

[MAS117]

A 253 person General Assembly, that is fing crazy. Yeah, it should be reduced. You have half the people as the U.S. House of Rep's which is for the whole country.

[12th Doctor]

A 253 person General Assembly, that is fing crazy. Yeah, it should be reduced. You have half the people as the U.S. House of Rep's which is for the whole country.

For the politically diverse state that we have, it is fine.  They should not have voted themselves the payraise, then we would not have these problems.  They already made $80,000 for Christ's sake.  Granted, it is a full time job, but these are supposed to be mostly average people anyway, not a bunch of lawyers who are threatening to leave if they don't make an attornies salary.

[J. J.]

I know both Stairs (who was my rep) and Young (who was one of my professors),  Both are moderate Republicans. 

This proposal has legs.  There are far too many members of the House.  Reducing the number to 151, for example, would be excellent.  Each constituency would be about 80,000-85,000 people.

The Senate is relatively small (50 members), so no change would be needed.

[TeePee4Prez]

Keep the Senate, but by all means reduce the Legislature.

[12th Doctor]

I know both Stairs (who was my rep) and Young (who was one of my professors),  Both are moderate Republicans. 

This proposal has legs.  There are far too many members of the House.  Reducing the number to 151, for example, would be excellent.  Each constituency would be about 80,000-85,000 people.

The Senate is relatively small (50 members), so no change would be needed.

But don't you see what this is going to do?  It's going to strip rural areas of seats and give the inner-cities more power.  In order to create a new arangment, they will have to expand inner-city seats in Pittsburgh and  Philadelphia into the suburbs.  That will make solid Democrat seats.  After that, they will expand suburban seats into the rural areas.  That's gonna make many of the rural seats less safe for the Republicans.  Philadelphia is going to be the major beneficiary of this plan.  The "T" is the only place that really stands to lose.

[nini2287]

Yeah I think we should decrease the House, especially when I heard one rep (Daylin Leach) say something like "5 people set the agenda for the other 198 rank-and-file of us".

[12th Doctor]

Am I the only one who is against handing the state over the Philadelphia on a silver platter?  If this goes through, the Democrats will run roughshot over the Republicans for a generation, at least.  Hey, while we are trying to self-destruct, why not run Mike Fisher again?  That worked real well the first time.

[J. J.]

I know both Stairs (who was my rep) and Young (who was one of my professors),  Both are moderate Republicans. 

This proposal has legs.  There are far too many members of the House.  Reducing the number to 151, for example, would be excellent.  Each constituency would be about 80,000-85,000 people.

The Senate is relatively small (50 members), so no change would be needed.

But don't you see what this is going to do?  It's going to strip rural areas of seats and give the inner-cities more power.  In order to create a new arangment, they will have to expand inner-city seats in Pittsburgh and  Philadelphia into the suburbs.  That will make solid Democrat seats.  After that, they will expand suburban seats into the rural areas.  That's gonna make many of the rural seats less safe for the Republicans.  Philadelphia is going to be the major beneficiary of this plan.  The "T" is the only place that really stands to lose.

No, the districts are of equal population.  Basically, PA is cut into a pie of 203 pieces, each of an equal size.  This plan would cause PA to be cut into a pie of, for example, 151 equal pieces.  Phliadelphia would lose seats along with the T areas.

[12th Doctor]

I know both Stairs (who was my rep) and Young (who was one of my professors),  Both are moderate Republicans. 

This proposal has legs.  There are far too many members of the House.  Reducing the number to 151, for example, would be excellent.  Each constituency would be about 80,000-85,000 people.

The Senate is relatively small (50 members), so no change would be needed.

But don't you see what this is going to do?  It's going to strip rural areas of seats and give the inner-cities more power.  In order to create a new arangment, they will have to expand inner-city seats in Pittsburgh and  Philadelphia into the suburbs.  That will make solid Democrat seats.  After that, they will expand suburban seats into the rural areas.  That's gonna make many of the rural seats less safe for the Republicans.  Philadelphia is going to be the major beneficiary of this plan.  The "T" is the only place that really stands to lose.

No, the districts are of equal population.  Basically, PA is cut into a pie of 203 pieces, each of an equal size.  This plan would cause PA to be cut into a pie of, for example, 151 equal pieces.  Phliadelphia would lose seats along with the T areas.

I understand this.  That's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is, if we have larger districts by population, then many of those districts, esspecially down near Philadelphia, are going to cut into the suburbs, which is going to to make those areas in the burbs that were once competative into solid Dem seats.  At the same time, areas of the suburbs are going to placed into the same districts as areas that were once in solidly Republican areas, which is going to make them more Democratic and more competative.   

It won't just be in Philly, it will happen all over the state.  The Erie metro now has 5 seats, I think.  Two of them are solid Dem, one is Dem lean and two are Republican lean.  If you eliminate seats, the likelyhood of ending up with 2, 3 or 4 (however much they choose to down size by) solidly Democratic seats, instead of five seats of which two are solid, is going to spike up dramatically, simply due to demographics.

However, the arguement works on a urban vs rural debate as well, because the power of the cities will be increased by the fact that solid voting blocs in the cities will now enjoy districts that are extended much farther into the sururban and rural areas.  Thus, granting urban voters more power than they already have to decide the legislature.

[TeePee4Prez]

I know both Stairs (who was my rep) and Young (who was one of my professors),  Both are moderate Republicans. 

This proposal has legs.  There are far too many members of the House.  Reducing the number to 151, for example, would be excellent.  Each constituency would be about 80,000-85,000 people.

The Senate is relatively small (50 members), so no change would be needed.

But don't you see what this is going to do?  It's going to strip rural areas of seats and give the inner-cities more power.  In order to create a new arangment, they will have to expand inner-city seats in Pittsburgh and  Philadelphia into the suburbs.  That will make solid Democrat seats.  After that, they will expand suburban seats into the rural areas.  That's gonna make many of the rural seats less safe for the Republicans.  Philadelphia is going to be the major beneficiary of this plan.  The "T" is the only place that really stands to lose.

No, the districts are of equal population.  Basically, PA is cut into a pie of 203 pieces, each of an equal size.  This plan would cause PA to be cut into a pie of, for example, 151 equal pieces.  Phliadelphia would lose seats along with the T areas.

I understand this.  That's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is, if we have larger districts by population, then many of those districts, esspecially down near Philadelphia, are going to cut into the suburbs, which is going to to make those areas in the burbs that were once competative into solid Dem seats.  At the same time, areas of the suburbs are going to placed into the same districts as areas that were once in solidly Republican areas, which is going to make them more Democratic and more competative.   

It won't just be in Philly, it will happen all over the state.  The Erie metro now has 5 seats, I think.  Two of them are solid Dem, one is Dem lean and two are Republican lean.  If you eliminate seats, the likelyhood of ending up with 2, 3 or 4 (however much they choose to down size by) solidly Democratic seats, instead of five seats of which two are solid, is going to spike up dramatically, simply due to demographics.

However, the arguement works on a urban vs rural debate as well, because the power of the cities will be increased by the fact that solid voting blocs in the cities will now enjoy districts that are extended much farther into the sururban and rural areas.  Thus, granting urban voters more power than they already have to decide the legislature.

Oh and you like the fact that you have the legislature on cheap gerrymandering or should I say Johnnymandering.  At least Perzel is somewhat pro-labor and cares for his district, but politically I don't care for him much.

[12th Doctor]

I know both Stairs (who was my rep) and Young (who was one of my professors),  Both are moderate Republicans. 

This proposal has legs.  There are far too many members of the House.  Reducing the number to 151, for example, would be excellent.  Each constituency would be about 80,000-85,000 people.

The Senate is relatively small (50 members), so no change would be needed.

But don't you see what this is going to do?  It's going to strip rural areas of seats and give the inner-cities more power.  In order to create a new arangment, they will have to expand inner-city seats in Pittsburgh and  Philadelphia into the suburbs.  That will make solid Democrat seats.  After that, they will expand suburban seats into the rural areas.  That's gonna make many of the rural seats less safe for the Republicans.  Philadelphia is going to be the major beneficiary of this plan.  The "T" is the only place that really stands to lose.

No, the districts are of equal population.  Basically, PA is cut into a pie of 203 pieces, each of an equal size.  This plan would cause PA to be cut into a pie of, for example, 151 equal pieces.  Phliadelphia would lose seats along with the T areas.

I understand this.  That's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is, if we have larger districts by population, then many of those districts, esspecially down near Philadelphia, are going to cut into the suburbs, which is going to to make those areas in the burbs that were once competative into solid Dem seats.  At the same time, areas of the suburbs are going to placed into the same districts as areas that were once in solidly Republican areas, which is going to make them more Democratic and more competative.   

It won't just be in Philly, it will happen all over the state.  The Erie metro now has 5 seats, I think.  Two of them are solid Dem, one is Dem lean and two are Republican lean.  If you eliminate seats, the likelyhood of ending up with 2, 3 or 4 (however much they choose to down size by) solidly Democratic seats, instead of five seats of which two are solid, is going to spike up dramatically, simply due to demographics.

However, the arguement works on a urban vs rural debate as well, because the power of the cities will be increased by the fact that solid voting blocs in the cities will now enjoy districts that are extended much farther into the sururban and rural areas.  Thus, granting urban voters more power than they already have to decide the legislature.

Oh and you like the fact that you have the legislature on cheap gerrymandering or should I say Johnnymandering.  At least Perzel is somewhat pro-labor and cares for his district, but politically I don't care for him much.

I don't know where you are getting that, the State legislature districts are pretty normal.  For one thing, they could have eliminated several rural Dems, like Bud George, but didn't.

I find it hard to believe that you would care much, anyway, if the Democrats had control and Gerrymandered the state so that there were only 60 Republican seats.  You should do a little honest self-examination before you start throwing around accusations.

[Emsworth]

A 253 person General Assembly, that is fing crazy.

New Hampshire is even worse. The House has 400 members (but they are essentially volunteers, being paid $100 per year).

[Jake]

By any chance, does anyone have a link to a list of state reps voting record on the pay raise. My local paper had it a few weeks back, but I lost that info.

[Keystone Phil]

By any chance, does anyone have a link to a list of state reps voting record on the pay raise. My local paper had it a few weeks back, but I lost that info.

http://www.informedpa.com/voting_record.php


Back to the subject, I think something that many are missing is that having so many Representatives actually helps the community. I know that in NE Philly, people feel very close to their State Rep. With fewer Reps, the connection would be lost.

[TeePee4Prez]

By any chance, does anyone have a link to a list of state reps voting record on the pay raise. My local paper had it a few weeks back, but I lost that info.

http://www.informedpa.com/voting_record.php


Back to the subject, I think something that many are missing is that having so many Representatives actually helps the community. I know that in NE Philly, people feel very close to their State Rep. With fewer Reps, the connection would be lost.

AWWW... I'm really feeling for them.  TOUGH SH!T!  I know you are referring to those rotten hacks that sneaked in during the Reagan era and haven't left since plus Perzel and Charlie Dougherty who sneaked in during the Josh Eilberg scandal in 1978. 

[Keystone Phil]

By any chance, does anyone have a link to a list of state reps voting record on the pay raise. My local paper had it a few weeks back, but I lost that info.

http://www.informedpa.com/voting_record.php


Back to the subject, I think something that many are missing is that having so many Representatives actually helps the community. I know that in NE Philly, people feel very close to their State Rep. With fewer Reps, the connection would be lost.

AWWW... I'm really feeling for them.  TOUGH SH!T!  I know you are referring to those rotten hacks that sneaked in during the Reagan era and haven't left since plus Perzel and Charlie Dougherty who sneaked in during the Josh Eilberg scandal in 1978. 

I love how they "sneaked" in. I love how you call them rotten hacks, too. People like O'Brien and Taylor are some of the most least partisan people in all of state government. You're so clueless it hurts to point it out.

[muon2]

In 1980, IL passed a constitutional amendment reducing the the number of house seats from 177 to 118, while keeping the Senate at 59 members. One protection is that the Each Senate district is divided into exactly two House districts, so it is only when the Senate is gerrymandered, that there can be much House gerrymandering. Unfortunately we do have a very gerrymandered map in IL.

[Jake]

How about this idea. Set a cap on the total amount of salary paid out to the Legislature and either let them reduce their numbers or take a pay cut. Make it 50,000 for every member that's in there right now and watch them scramble.

[TeePee4Prez]

By any chance, does anyone have a link to a list of state reps voting record on the pay raise. My local paper had it a few weeks back, but I lost that info.

http://www.informedpa.com/voting_record.php


Back to the subject, I think something that many are missing is that having so many Representatives actually helps the community. I know that in NE Philly, people feel very close to their State Rep. With fewer Reps, the connection would be lost.

AWWW... I'm really feeling for them.  TOUGH SH!T!  I know you are referring to those rotten hacks that sneaked in during the Reagan era and haven't left since plus Perzel and Charlie Dougherty who sneaked in during the Josh Eilberg scandal in 1978. 

I love how they "sneaked" in. I love how you call them rotten hacks, too. People like O'Brien and Taylor are some of the most least partisan people in all of state government. You're so clueless it hurts to point it out.

I'm calling them hacks because they park themselves in there for 3 decades and don't want to leave for someone else or for a promotion.  They are the poster boys for term limits.

[jimrtex]

How about this idea. Set a cap on the total amount of salary paid out to the Legislature and either let them reduce their numbers or take a pay cut. Make it 50,000 for every member that's in there right now and watch them scramble.

In Texas, the Constitution sets legislator pay at $7200/year.  A higher amount may be recommended, but it must be approved by the voters.

A couple of decades ago, pensions for legislators were tied to judicial pensions.   With lawyers unwilling to take pay cuts to become judges, there has been pressure for the legislature to increase judicial pay.   The legislature is more than willing considering that their pension is comparable to that granted to judges making in the mid $100,000s.

[Dave from Michigan]

wow 253 is a lot of representatives thats 48,500 a person, I wish we had that many in Michigan we  have 110 or around 90,000 people per district.  We just had a huge pay increase a few years ago 38% but nothing happened the pay went from like 58,000 a year to 85,000 I think

[Keystone Phil]

By any chance, does anyone have a link to a list of state reps voting record on the pay raise. My local paper had it a few weeks back, but I lost that info.

http://www.informedpa.com/voting_record.php


Back to the subject, I think something that many are missing is that having so many Representatives actually helps the community. I know that in NE Philly, people feel very close to their State Rep. With fewer Reps, the connection would be lost.

AWWW... I'm really feeling for them.  TOUGH SH!T!  I know you are referring to those rotten hacks that sneaked in during the Reagan era and haven't left since plus Perzel and Charlie Dougherty who sneaked in during the Josh Eilberg scandal in 1978. 

I love how they "sneaked" in. I love how you call them rotten hacks, too. People like O'Brien and Taylor are some of the most least partisan people in all of state government. You're so clueless it hurts to point it out.

I'm calling them hacks because they park themselves in there for 3 decades and don't want to leave for someone else or for a promotion.  They are the poster boys for term limits.

I refuse to see that as a reason to call someone a hack and a few of them might be looking for a "promotion" in a few years, anway.