Amid the budget season debate over how best to cut government costs in Pennsylvania, one issue has been notably absent from the remarks of state lawmakers: shrinking the size of the commonwealth’s bloated Legislature.

Many observers have been calling on the General Assembly to shrink its own size for a decade or more. And it’s beyond time for lawmakers to heed those voices and put the issue before voters in a statewide referendum.

That’s the third and final step in the process, and only occurs after legislation trimming the General Assembly’s size is approved by lawmakers in two consecutive legislative sessions.

With House Bill 153 up for consideration in 2017, we’re on the cusp of reaching that threshold. Members of the state House first approved the bill in May of 2015, and the Senate in January of 2016. The bill would reduce the size for the House from 203 to 151 members.

But so far in 2017 — with a vigorous debate over how best to find savings in a stressed-out state budget — there’s been nothing but crickets on the issue. That doesn’t make much sense, given that Pennsylvania’s budget woes are a long-term problem that demands long-term solutions. Eliminating members of the General Assembly, which costs taxpayers more than $300 million per year and was the eighth-largest line item in the 2016-17 budget, certainly qualifies.

If lawmakers are being honest, they haven’t made a very good case for why the General Assembly deserves to be the nation’s largest, full-time legislature.

Pennsylvania is facing a pension crisis lawmakers either can’t or won’t resolve. The state’s legislative redistricting process — which lawmakers control — is broken and corrupt. And lawmakers can’t even seem to reliably accomplish basic duties like submitting an on-time state budget or keeping the state in-line with federal initiatives like Real ID.

Given these failings, it’s obvious that the General Assembly’s size is only part of the problem. It’s ineffectiveness also needs to be remedied.

Lawmakers might start with spending more time at the office. Legislators were only in session for 10 days through the first 10 weeks of 2017. According to calendars kept by both chambers, they will only be in session for 43 days through the first six months of this year.

Session days don’t represent the sum total of legislators’ duties, but with the myriad of problems facing the commonwealth, it doesn’t make sense for elected officials to be spending so little time in Harrisburg. They need to get something done for a change.

They can start by reducing expenses tied to our malfunctioning legislature. That money would be better spent on a host of other initiatives — anything from expanding pre-kindergarten education programs to bridge projects. Many taxpayers would probably be just as happy not to spend the money on anything at all.

If our elected officials are serious about finding savings in Pennsylvania’s budget, this should be one of their top priorities in 2017.