AUGUST 11, 2011

Which Government Structure Reforms will Benefit Taxpayers?

This week, the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee held a hearing on bills to reduce the size of the General Assembly (i.e., the number of legislators). While CF did not testify on this particular hearing, we have written on this and related issues in the past.

Earlier this year, I spoke to a Pennsylvania Bar Association Commission on structural reforms to the legislature; that presentation is below.

Our conclusion is that, absent other reforms, simply reducing the number of legislators may not generate cost savings or improve transparency and accountability in government. Nor is there any link between legislative size and policy outcomes: taxes, spending or economic freedom.

However, other substantive reforms, including term limits and the "professionalization" (full-time vs. part-time, salary and benefits, and number of staff) do correlate with policy outcomes.

Pennsylvania Government Structural Reforms

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 05:59 PM | 0 comment

NOVEMBER 1, 2009

Size Isn't Everything

Sen. Dave Argall has introduced another attempt to reduce the size of Pennsylvania's General Assembly.

Pennsylvania is ranked 2nd in the nation for largest state legislator size (totaling 253); 4th in the nation for highest paid legislators ($76,000, base pay per year), and 1st for most expensive operating legislature in the nation.

The proposed bill would eliminate 5 positions in the Senate and 50 positions in the House by 2053. Similar bills to reduce legislators' size have failed to gain support in the past, but Sen. Argall has also proposed extending House term limits from two to four years to gain endorsement.

Advocates for reducing the size of the General Assembly say it will save millions in the Legislature's operating costs. As we've repeated time and time again it is unlikely that minimizing the legislature's size without other reforms will affect Harrisburg's spending problem. Studies have shown it is a state's number of legislative staff that really drives the costs up. Pennsylvania is ranked 2nd in the nation in this area, with over 11.6 staff members per legislator.

States with larger staff sizes per legislature spend more per capita; have higher tax burdens, and less economic freedom. Any reduction in the size of legislature must be coupled with additional reforms, such as limited sessions and limited terms.

posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 04:00 PM | 0 comment

OCTOBER 20, 2009

Common Sense on Legislative Size

Paul Jacob's latest "Common Sense" deals with the size of the Pennsylvania Legislature.  Jacob advises:

[D]on’t cut the size of the legislature. But by all means cut the cost.

The problem Pennsylvanians have in reforming their state is that — shockingly — self-interested politicians are resistant to reform, and the voters lack an initiative process to do the job themselves.

Click here for the audio version.

In our own analysis, we found very little connection between the number of legislators and government spending, taxes, economic freedom, or any other outcomes.  On the other hand, legislative professionalism - i.e. number of staff, session length, pay and penefits - has a more more important and profound impact

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 03:17 PM | 1 comment

OCTOBER 8, 2009

Shrink or Grow the Size of Legislature

NCSL's blog, The Thicket, has a post up about debating reducing or growing the size of the legislature. Pennsylvania serves on the shrinking size, as that is an oft-cited recommendation, most recently in the Post-Gazette, whereas the proposal to increase the Canadian Parliament is the other side of that debate.

We have looked into the question of reducing the size of the Pennsylvania General Assembly before, relying on NCSL data among others, finding that there is little correlation between number of legislators and policy outcomes. However, legislative professionalization - pay, benefits, length of sessions, number of staff, etc. - has a much stronger connection on taxes, spending, and policy.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:16 AM | 0 comment

SEPTEMBER 8, 2009

Pennsylvania Has Most Legislative Staff

Brad Bumsted had an article over the weekend on Pennsylvania's largest in the nation legislative staff and, of course, the high cost of keeping that staff.  The number of staff is one of several reasons why Pennsylvania has the most expensive state legislature.

Here is the report from NCSL on number of legislative staffers.  (I'd be curious to know who Pennsylvania's only "session only" staffer is, who is only employed during the year-round session).

I wonder if there is any correlation between having the most legislative staff, and being the only state without a budget.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 05:00 PM | 0 comment

JULY 31, 2008

Too little... too late

Lowman Henry weighs in on the House State Government Committee's upcoming hearing on reducing the size of the legislature. He doesn't say much on the merits of the proposal (though we did a policy brief on it two years ago), but remarks that it seems "disingenuous" to hold hearings this late in the session on a proposal that has been sitting in the committee for months.

I think the use of metaphors from Greek mythology has inspired the committee chair.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 02:12 PM | 0 comment

JULY 14, 2008

Pennsylvania's super-sized legislature

There's nothing like a government scandal to get people in the mood . . . for reform. An article by Anne Reeves in the Patriot-News reminds us why the Pennsylvania legislature should down-size. Reforming the general assembly, however, is more complicated than cutting the number of legislative seats or even more significant reform like downgrading to a part-time legislature. In this short article Reeves gives readers a peek at the cost of big government:

• At 253 members the PA legislature is the largest full-time state legislative body in the nation. New York's assembly totals 211, California's 120.
• On a staff-per-legislator basis Pennsylvania ranks third, this "Professionalization" is especially costly.
• Pennsylvania tolerates the highest staff-to-population ratio of the 13 largest states (Of course you need more staff to run your office when half of your people are busy campaigning for the next election).
• Base salaries at $73,613 are the fourth highest in the nation. But don't forget to add $129 per diem and various perks like liberal retirement benefits.
• Only California spends more per legislative member, Pennsylvania spends an average of 1.13 million.
• On the bright side, (yes there is a glimmer of hope) the 2008-09 budget set aside 332.2 million to run both chambers, in 2003 that figure was 341 million. Although $8 million of the $9 million cut was for a legislative drafting system (a one-time expense).

Shrinking the physical size of the legislature could be beneficial. But moving away from a professional legislature to a citizen-legislature is crucial to other reforms including eliminating the lame duck session, a constitutional convention, increasing government transparency, and limited terms. Click here for more on shrinking the legislature.

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 11:14 AM | 0 comment

OCTOBER 23, 2006

General reassembly

The York Daily Record series of editorials on the merits of a state Constitutional Convention and other governmental reforms.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 00:12 PM | 0 comment

AUGUST 4, 2006

General Assembly Too Big & Expensive

Editorial in the Press Enterprise Online on reducing the legislature. While they use figures from my testimony, they fail to note that the crux of our position is that more substantive reforms are needed to ensure that reducing the size of the General Assembly results in a reduction in spending on the legislature and to create greater transparency and accountability by lawmakers.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 01:34 PM | 0 comment