Pennsylvania residents shouldn't become overly optimistic about the prospects of having a smaller General Assembly operating on a significantly smaller budget, even though a hearing on the issue will be held Aug. 19.

It would be a development of virtually epic proportions if a bill mandating a smaller legislature were to emerge from committee prior to the end of the current legislative session on Nov. 30, receive approval by both houses of the Legislature and be signed by Gov. Ed Rendell.

Consider: A bill introduced by state Rep. Mark Mustio, R-Moon Township, in January 2007 to reduce the 203-member House of Representatives to 161 members and the 50-member Senate to 40, and reduce by 20 percent the House and Senate operating budgets, has been stymied in the House State Government Committee since Jan. 30, 2007. No matter what happens at the Aug. 19 hearing, it isn't likely that a floor vote in the House will be permitted to take place during the current session.

Despite the importance of the issue, the committee is only allocating two hours for the hearing, apparently preferring to receive most testimony in written form that it can sit on indefinitely under the guise of studying it.

If the proposed legislation isn't passed this session, it will have to be reintroduced next session.

The fact that it has taken so long for any substantive action on the Mustio measure proves the issue is not a priority of the Democrat-controlled House State Government Committee, which is headed by Rep. Babette Josephs of Philadelphia. Josephs has denied subjecting the bill to any unnecessary delays.

However, Josephs is a strong ally of House Democratic leader William DeWeese of Waynesburg, who opposes any reduction in the General Assembly's size — and that dooms the measure, as long as DeWeese wields his vast leadership power.

DeWeese contends that a smaller Legislature would worsen lawmaker service to constituents, because each lawmaker would have to serve more people. However, he ignores the likely benefit that a smaller Legislature would provide a more streamlined, effective General Assembly with the ability to get more work done with less partisanship and in less time.

The current General Assembly is more an oversized swamp of partisanship than a vehicle for efficiently and effectively addressing important state issues, and state residents are justified in being frustrated and angry about the sad state of the Pennsylvania Legislature.

A smaller-sized Legislature with a smaller window of time to consider legislation — along with more lawmakers committed to action and representing the best interests of their constituents, rather than themselves — is what Pennsylvania really needs at this time of Bonusgate and in the aftermath of pay-raise and pension atrocities.

Even more desirable than what Mustio proposes is a Legislature half the size of the current one with half the combined budgets of the two legislative bodies; those budgets now total $300 million.

But, while Mustio's legislation — House Bill 55 — wouldn't go deep enough in terms of reducing the General Assembly's size, it offers the prospect of important change.

For that reason it merits passage until a better plan comes along.

The Mustio measure envisions a reasonable timetable for implementation of the membership- and budget-reduction processes; those changes would not go into effect until after the 2010 census.

Mustio said in a news release, "Despite reports of its demise, the issue of reducing the size of the Legislature has never been more alive or within the people's grasp as it is today."

With Democrats in control of the State Government Committee, as a Republican he's probably speaking too optimistically. But strange happenings can occur — like the voter outrage spawned by the 2005 middle-of-the-night pay-raise vote.

The voters' negative perception of the Legislature at this time might influence some lawmakers to vote for a reduction bill, if they were given the opportunity. But more likely, after the hearing, the bill again will be bottled up in the State Government panel, with it's fate cloudy.

Passage of the measure also must be regarded as a long shot given the fact that some lawmakers would, in effect, be risking ousting themselves from their job if they help pass the measure.

Aug. 19 will be a good day to observe, but even more interesting will be the silence of many lawmakers in the aftermath of the hearing.

Voters across the commonwealth should determine whether their lawmaker is part of that silence that will be aimed at protecting the not-so-effective status quo.