Dear Editor:
A recent editorial in the Times News ("Too short," 05/24/10) advocated reducing the size of the General Assembly, extending House terms from two years to four to allow more time for policy making and less time for political campaigning, and that this measure would help the state's fiscal crisis tremendously. I would like to echo the sentiments about the importance of exploring every avenue for savings to the taxpayer.
I have introduced legislation that would accomplish this goal by reducing the size of the General Assembly from 253 members to 198. I feel that this proposal is the most realistic plan for reducing the size of the General Assembly, but I am also willing to support other similar plans that will help reduce costs to taxpayers responsibly.
However, it is important to note that simply reducing the size of the Legislature will not solve the state's fiscal problems. The General Assembly's entire budget (salary, operations, etc.) makes up less than one percent of the state's overall spending. Even if we eliminated the House and Senate entirely and declared Ed Rendell the "King" of Pennsylvania, the savings would not come close to solving the state's fiscal woes. This doesn't mean that reducing the size of the Legislature isn't important, but we should also realize that this measure is not a "silver bullet" that will solve the problem entirely.
We need to continue to examine every possible avenue for savings and I will continue my work as Chairman of the Senate's bipartisan Government Management and Cost Study Commission to explore spending reductions in every branch of government. Suggestions from local people on reducing the cost of state government are always welcomed and appreciated at cuttingcosts@pasen.gov.
Senator Dave Argall (R-29)
Tamaqua
PrintThis
Comments
Mr. Argall has been in Harrisburg as an elected person or worked as an employee of a representative since graduating college in 1981. In nearly 30 years of public employment or office older, he has not been able to cut the costs to the taxpayers of PA. That is why I call his comments here phony. It is smoke and mirrors. He says one thing and votes differently.
From his letter, "I would like to echo the sentiments about the importance of exploring every avenue for savings to the taxpayer." There is no action here to cut the spending, just support of an idea. I can't put a bill into the senate to change things; he can. But he does not.
From his letter, "I have introduced legislation that would accomplish this goal by reducing the size of the General Assembly from 253 members to 198." Why only cut the number to 198? If there are 67 counties in PA, why not 67 in the GA? Why not part-time like in Texas? They make the majority of laws to restrict our freedoms and to take more taxes out of our paychecks or from companies we work for.
I can not think of a law we do not have now that we need tomorrow. If you believe the same, then you would agree that we don't need full time legislatures.
We put too much power and authority in the elected people. It is government for the people, not of the people.
Mr. Argall has been addressing the welfare expenses in the State. Why not measure the money going out as compared to what the recipients had put in. If you need the benefits, then you get the benefits. But, under a new program. For welfare, you get a measured stipend for the first six months, it decreases each months there after by 10% of the original stipend until zero. At that time, the recipient would not be eligible for welfare for ten consecutive years. These people would then need to go to work and contribute back in so that other needy people would be able to get some assistance (not a way of life) while saving the taxpayers!
The politician sees this as a way to not get re-elected instead of finding a prudent way to guard the taxes taken from us.
How about getting through a re-write of the gambling revenue law. Instead of 30-40% of the revenue going to real estate tax relief, why not 100% of it until the state fully funds the school budgets in PA? I remember the plan was promoted as real estate tax relief only until the vote was done. You elected people misled the public again. So since you told us, or only mentioned one thing the revenue would be used for, why not make it one thing?
People, we need to vote out these lifers. Take back your freedom! They work for you, not the other way around, as they would have you think!
Local guy with some thoughts!