Within the last year there have
been two proposals to reduce the size of Pennsylvania state government. Neither
one will do anything worthwhile.
Last year, state Rep. Thomas
Caltagirone, D-127, of Reading, proposed amending the Pennsylvania Constitution
to make counties the baseline government in the state. If passed, the bill
would make the counties responsible for local land use, personnel, law
enforcement, sanitation and other areas that are now part of a municipality’s
responsibilities.
In his own words: “It would
eliminate all local governmental units, boroughs, townships and cities.”
He said there are more than
2,500 municipal governments in the state and that makes things cumbersome for
companies to do business in Pennsylvania and that it is a potential cost saving
measure.
Independent candidate Dave
Cleary, who challenged Steve Barrar last year, also took up that cause of
eliminating local government.
What both men failed to accept
— maybe — is that making the county the most local level of government would
only work to centralize government, not decentralize. Maybe they did see that
and want greater centralization, top down government that reduces the influence
of local residents.
The proposal lost last year —
as did Cleary — but the Reading Democrat who won his re-election bid in
November, said he would bring it back this session. So far that has not
happened, but there is another measure afoot that claims to reduce government,
but again, the change would be nothing more than cosmetic.
There are proposals now for
reducing the size of the state House and Senate. One of the proposals calls for
the number of House members to drop from 203 to 153, while the other proposal
wants to shrink the Senate by 20 seats, going from 50 to 30, with 121 House seats
remaining.
As with last year’s proposal,
either of the new ones would require a constitutional amendment, which means it
would have to be approved by two straight legislative sessions and pass a voter
referendum. Gov. Tom Corbett said there would be voter support.
That there would be public
support is a logical assumption considering the attitudes about government
these days. Disenchantment with the federal government filters down to the
state level.
What too many people still fail
to realize, however, is that the problem with governments is not how many
representatives or senators there are, but that government gets way too
involved in the every day choices of men and women and in deciding what
business may or may not do.
Governments should do nothing
more than protect people from those who would initiate acts of force or fraud.
For those who want to actually reduce the size and cost of state government,
let the legislature finally get on the stick and sell off the state-owned and
operated liquor stores. Let them vote to end the rights-destroying drug war on
the state level. And if they really want to reduce the cost of government to
the taxpayer, make the legislature a part-time job so that representatives and
senators would have to earn the bulk of their money in the private sector
instead of feeding off the taxpayer.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
Comments