Curtail costs and cut government size

Isn't it sad that we are pleasantly surprised to learn that Gov. Pat Quinn is a pretty frugal guy? We are so used to elite, self-dealing, and free-spending politicians that it is now unusual to find someone who isn't.

I have two "broad stroke" ideas about how to cut the cost of government. First, changes must be made to dissuade anyone from making a lifetime career out of holding elective office. While term limits would help in this area, "careerists" could be dissuaded from public service if salaries were simply cut in half and no benefits were paid. The bulk of political jobs are part-time gigs for which full-time pay is offered. I'd also cut the staff budget in half for members of congress and for members of the Illinois legislature as well. This would require the elected official to work more instead of sloughing off responsibilities to staff members.

Money could be saved here in two ways: (1) the government payroll would be reduced; and (2) spending that panders to special interest groups that support the election/re-election of careerists would decline.

Today's governmental units were designed in horse and buggy days of the late 1800s. The number and location of governmental entities was predicated on having them close to those whom the units were to serve. In today's era of modern transportation systems and fabulous telecommunications technology, people and information can flow freely and easily. There is little reason to have 102 counties in Illinois. With four times Illinois' population and a larger land mass, California has 58. Does the state, within its counties, need 1433 township offices? Why so many school districts? Library districts? Park districts? Every one of these governmental units spends money on staff, facilities, equipment, and services.

Surely, consolidation would shrink redundancy and cut costs without impairing service. Are there any frugal leaders out there who want to adopt either of my ideas?

Charles F. Falk

Schaumburg