|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
|
State Rep. Jesse White |
|
TO: Editor, PA Focus
FROM: State Rep. Jesse White, D-Washington/Allegheny/Beaver
RE: Reducing the size of the legislatureaconjar
Would you rather have it big and cheap or small and bloated?
Now that the state legislature has finally passed a new Open Records Act and Gov. Ed Rendell has signed it, we are left with an important question. What kind of reform do we do next?
One of the most-often suggested legislative reforms is reducing the size of the General Assembly, which currently has 203 members. Grappling with this issue for some time has led me back to the same question over and over again: How exactly would a smaller legislature be better?
I currently represent about 65,000 people in a legislative district that covers 400 square miles spread out over three counties. Legislative districts are drawn by population, so spread-out, rural areas often have less clout than urban areas with larger populations. In fact, the last time there was a constitutional convention in Pennsylvania, back in 1968, the size of the legislature was increased specifically to give rural and suburban areas more dedicated representation in the General Assembly.
No one has ever come up to me and said, “Jesse, your legislative district isn’t big enough. You should be representing more people.” No one thinks that way. It took some time, but I have learned to read between the lines when people complain to me about the size of the legislature. It’s not the size they are upset about, it's the cost.
I recently stood with several of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, to support an initiative to reduce the cost of the General Assembly by 20 percent. To be honest, it shouldn’t be that hard to do. There are many services that each party’s caucuses pay for on their own that could be combined on a bipartisan basis, such research, media and computer services. There are also many other things we could do to keep costs low while still providing constituent service effectively.
After all, if we did reduce the size of the legislature but didn’t reduce its line item in the budget, then the only people who would be getting the short end of the deal would be the taxpayers. That money would never see its way back into your pockets, which is what I believe that most people want. So I say reduce the cost of the legislature by 20 percent and give that money back to the people in the form of tax relief.
The next time you hear someone talking about how we need to reduce the size of the legislature, ask that person if they wouldn’t prefer reducing the cost instead. Making the legislature more cost-effective is a real reform measure worth pursuing, one that would save millions of dollars each year without taking away from the representation that our rural areas so desperately need.
###