Reform-opinion-Mulgrew

==More Is Less With Professional Politicians==
: by William Mulgrew on 10/20/2006 and published in The Evening Bulletin
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.
==Links==
* Reform
category:democracy