Pennsylvania's House of Representatives recently passed a bill reducing the size of Pennsylvania’s legislature, but the state Senate hasn't taken up the measure yet so there's no guarantee it will pass in its current form. That's a good thing, because the House bill is akin to buying generic toilet paper. The money savings seems like a good idea when you’re in the supermarket checkout line, but when you’re done sitting on the toilet seat you suddenly recognize that cheaper doesn’t mean better. Plus, cheaper isn’t always cheaper in the long run, especially if you have to use up half a roll of the bargain brand to finish the job. You get my drift!
Reflecting the will of the people in the running of state government is supposed to be the job of the Pennsylvania legislature, and it would be worthwhile if that job could be accomplished with a minimum of taxpayer expense, but the simple act of reducing the size of our legislature without additional safeguards in place will not result in a better legislature – only a cheaper one.
The only way to insure our legislature is both cheaper and reflects the will of the people is to require all legislative districts, or as many as possible, to have equal numbers of voters from each major political party. That would result in far fewer safe legislative districts and significantly decrease the powers of fringe-based ideology that currently strangles government and prevents the true will of the people from being heard.
Ask yourself this question: Would you support a smaller legislature if it meant the political party you support would lose power and become a minority party? If your answer is yes, then I’m with you, but if your answer is no, then I have to assume that for you, reducing legislature size is really about preserving power, and not saving money or making government more reflective of the will of the people. Remember, cheaper doesn’t always mean better, and that applies to government, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment