In the scheme cooked up behind closed doors early last July between legislative leaders in Harrisburg and state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy, it was decided that our state officials were worthy of half the pay of their federal counterparts.

Beyond the justifiable citizen outrage over the secretive way in which the pay-raise vote was managed and passed — with no public discussion and no floor debate — there is the issue of the arbitrary linkage of Pennsylvania officials' pay at half of federal officials'.

On what basis did our legislative leaders, particularly House Speaker John Perzel, R-Philadelphia, decide that they deserve half the pay of members of Congress?

There are plenty of other comparisons that could have been considered, most of which are far more legitimate.

Looking at other states is a good place to start, if comparisons are to be meaningful.

California lawmakers, whose pay is determined by an independent commission rather than the lawmakers themselves, recently received a pay boost to put most Sacramento pols at $110,880. As a side note, California has only 120 lawmakers, so the cost of the state legislature there is less than in Harrisburg, where 253 lawmakers are required to manage state affairs.

This fact gives the Keystone State the dubious distinction of having the most expensive state legislature in the nation.

Considering that California's population in the 2000 census was nearly 34 million while Pennsylvania's population was well below half of that, at 12.2 million, it would seem appropriate that Pennsylvania lawmakers should make less than half of California lawmakers — or about $50,000 a year.

Clearly, Pennsylvania lawmakers who voted themselves a pay raise of $11,000 or more at 2 a.m. on July 7 are overpaid, considering that the base salary was pushed up to $81,050. As several commentators have noted, they were overpaid before the latest pay-raise vote.

Instead of looking at California, it might make more sense to look at Illinois, which in 2000 had a population of 12.4 million, slightly higher than Pennsylvania's. Illinois pays its lawmakers $55,788 a year and provides a daily expense allowance of $85.

By this comparison too, Pennsylvania's lawmakers are overpaid, with base salaries now at $81,050 or more for various leaders and per diems of $120.

Another helpful comparison is Ohio, with a population of about 11.4 million. It's quite close to Pennsylvania in population and makeup in terms of having both aging industrial cities and large rural sectors.

Ohio pays its legislators $53,707. Again, by this comparison, Pennsylvania lawmakers are highly overpaid with a base salary of $81,050 — and a total compensation, including fringe benefits, of about $150,000 a year.

Multiply the $150,000 a year times 253 lawmakers, then add in all the staffers and related expenses, and it's easy to see why Pennsylvania has the most expensive state legislature. Voters must ask themselves the obvious question: "Is it the most effective legislative body in the nation?" Acknowledging that other states have their own problems, the clear answer to that question is still "no."

Do voters believe they are getting their money's worth? What argument can Pennsylvania legislators make to convince people they are worth the money they are being paid?

And Ohio, with nearly the same population, manages with just 132 legislators.

In New York, with 6 million more citizens than Pennsylvania, the legislature totals just 211 members, well below Pennsylvania's 253.

By shining a spotlight on their generous pay and benefits, lawmakers in Harrisburg have illuminated the fact that by just about any measure they are overpaid — and the legislative body itself is bloated with more members than are necessary, based on any other state in the nation.

The list of reforms needed in Harrisburg is long and should start with an explicit ban on the use of unvouchered expenses. The obvious follow-up should be a repeal of the July 7 pay raise. That should be followed by a downward adjustment of lawmakers' pay and benefits to something more in line with other states.

Then, reformers should reduce the size of the state legislature itself. Other states manage with fewer lawmakers, and Pennsylvania should be no different.

Pegging state lawmakers' and other officials' pay to federal pay rates is arbitrary and wrong. A better method for gauging appropriate compensation is to look at other state governments.

But Harrisburg pols won't like that approach, because on every level they appear to be overpaid and underperforming.

— J.L.W.III