Are state lawmakers serious about reducing the size of the Legislature? They’ve brought up the idea several times in the past, but never followed through with action.

In what sounds like an effort to placate taxpayers fed up with corruption and political dysfunction, lawmakers in Harrisburg are again talking about trimming the size — and therefore the cost — of the state Legislature. With one of the largest and most-expensive state legislatures in the country, most Pennsylvanians would doubtless support the effort.

Beyond past failures to advance the idea, there is another reason to be skeptical of the current effort. Trimming the size of the Legislature means state lawmakers would be voting against their own self interests. They would be voting to eliminate some of their jobs. And given that state lawmakers’ salaries and perks are generous, it’s hard to imagine a majority of lawmakers voting to boot themselves off what many citizens see as the gravy train.

Such selfless action seems unlikely from a group of people who have made headlines in the past decade or so voting for, not against, their own self interests at the expense of taxpayers — think of the 2001 pension grab (with lawmakers voting themselves a 50 percent pension increase) and the pay-raise vote of 2005, which was reversed only after voters expressed outrage.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly is among the largest and most expensive state legislature in the nation. At 253, there are more state lawmakers in Harrisburg than in any other state capital, with the exception of Concord, New Hampshire, where the 400 part-time lawmakers are paid $100 a year.

In Harrisburg, lawmakers make about $100,000, including the value of benefits such as pensions, health care and per diems. Not only does Pennsylvania have more high-paid, full-time lawmakers than other state, those lawmakers also are supported by more staffers than lawmakers in other states.

But frustration with the state Legislature is not limited to cost. The failure this year to pass legislation on public employee pension reform, transportation funding and privatization of the state’s Prohibition-era state store system suggest a legislature that is dysfunctional as well as expensive.

That’s the same discouraging conclusion reached by a grand jury that heard testimony a few years ago about legislative corruption related to the Bonusgate scandal. In addition to recommending criminal charges against a handful of legislative staffers and lawmakers, that grand jury went further, producing a report listing ways to clean up and improve the Legislature’s efficiency. Reducing the number of lawmakers was one of the recommendations.

But if history is used as a guide to predict the probability of legislation being passed to reduce the size of the Legislature — a vote that would be in the best interest of taxpayers, but would cost some lawmakers their jobs — the odds should be rated as slim, at best.

State House Speaker Sam Smith is proposing to reduce House membership by 50 seats, taking it from 203 to 153. In the Senate, there is a proposal to trim that 50-seat body to 30 members.

A smaller state Legislature would save taxpayers money — and many observers also believe it would function better, making it easier to advance and pass bills.

Despite the common sense nature of both shrink-the-legislature proposals, Pennsylvania’s lawmakers don’t have much of a track record for doing what’s good for taxpayers, especially if it comes at the expense of lawmakers themselves.

The public should get behind the effort being promoted by Smith and others. But given past actions by Pennsylvania’s state lawmakers, it’s safe to say we’ll believe it when we see it.