I hate being a told-you-so skeptic when it comes to the Pennsylvania General Assembly, but history has proven us skeptics right more times than we have been wrong.

Case in point: When state Rep. Jerry Knowles, R-Schuylkill/Carbon, first introduced his bill to reduce the number of state House of Representatives members from its current 203 to 151, I was excited and heartened, because there were signs that maybe the time had come for his colleagues to bite the bullet on this no-brainer.

Of course, I was wary, because it would mean that 52 fewer legislators would be on the public payroll, and that they would be voting to eliminate their $87,171-a-year salary plus outstanding benefits.

In this age of instant communication, is it necessary to have 253 legislators (including 50 in the state Senate)? Knowles and I say no, and we are not alone.

Earlier this year, Knowles’ original bill was amended to also reduce the size of the Senate from 50 to 38. To approve this amendment would effectively kill the bill, because there is no stomach among senators to reduce their number.

Reducing the number of House members would save taxpayers an estimated $15 million, according to a House study; reducing the Senate by 12 members would save another $4 million to $7 million.

Knowles’ bill would have called for a constitutional amendment to let us voters decide. Going this route is difficult, because it requires the House and Senate to pass the exact same bills twice in consecutive legislative sessions, after which it must be approved by us voters.

There was optimism when the measure sailed through the General Assembly the first time around. Some even speculated that if the stars aligned correctly, we voters might have seen the constitutional question on this Nov. 6’s General Election ballot.

Here’s where my skepticism was sadly reinforced. A few days ago, House Majority Leader David Reed, R-Indiana, incredibly allowed minority Democrats on the House Rules Committee, who are opposed to Knowles’ bill, to insert an amendment to reduce the number of senators from 50 to 38, effectively killing the measure.

Understand the significance of this parliamentary chicanery: This is the first time in years that the majority party (the Republicans) allowed this kind of minority party intervention. The amendment prevailed in committee by a vote of 18-14, with all Democrats and three Republicans voting for the amendment. One of the Republicans was Jack Rader, who represents part of Monroe County. One of the Democrats who voted in favor of the amended bill was Neal Goodman, D-Schuylkill.

At one time in this grotesque example of legislative skullduggery, the House and Senate were on the same page and had both passed the House-reduction measure, but to amend the state Constitution, they had to do it a second time in the new legislative session, and that is when some of the original supporters got cold feet.

When the bill finally emerged from committee, it included an amendment with the Senate-reduction plan, and that essentially was the kiss of death. While the House approved this bill with the amendment, the Senate wanted to go back to the original idea of just House-reduction.

If the House committee had approved just the House-reduction original bill, there is a good chance the bill would have been approved by both Houses and sent on to us voters, but, of course, this is not what happened. If a legislative-reduction bill gets to the voters, we would approve it in a heartbeat. The Pennsylvania General Assembly is the largest full-time legislature in the U.S. and the second largest overall. Only New Hampshire’s is larger with 424 part-time members, who receive an annual salary of just $200 each.

Pennsylvania is the fifth-largest state in population (according to 2016 estimates). Compared to our 253 members, California’s Legislature has just 120 legislators, even though California is three times more populous than Pennsylvania.

California’s legislators are paid more, but Pennsylvania’s are second on the salary scale. Legislative leaders make even more than the $87,181 made by rank-and-file members.

In addition to their salary, Pennsylvania legislators get a daily allowance, generous pensions and other perks, such as automatic annual cost-of-living increases.

Of course, there is opposition within the House itself. Aside from the practical matter of eliminating their own jobs, some House members are concerned that newer, enlarged districts would be too unwieldy and would not allow them to be as in touch with their constituents. Under the plan, the average population of a House district would be about 85,000, compared to the present 63,000.

Several attempts to reach Knowles for comments about what, if anything, he plans to do next were unsuccessful.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com