“Out with the old” is the theme of two initiatives being considered in the state Legislature that propose the elimination of daylight saving time and per diem spending.

In the case of the former, there’s an argument to be made, although it’s probably wise to get input from all sides first. Regarding the latter, there is the need for strong reform, but perhaps not complete elimination.

There are only two states — Arizona and Hawaii — that do not observe daylight saving time, although other states have held discussions to get rid of it altogether.

Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives passed a bill to make daylight saving time permanent, and it will now move on to the state Senate.

Some state legislators have noted that changing the clocks twice per year has become an outdated nuisance.

It’s a common misconception that daylight saving time was created to help farmers — in fact, farmers often lobby against it because of its disruption to their schedules. Daylight saving time was briefly used during World Wars I and II to conserve fuel and became commonplace in the 1970s because of that decade’s energy crisis.

In recent years, the practice’s defenders have included those in the tourism or recreation industries who argue the extra hour of daylight keeps people outdoors longer.

But others say time changes disrupt the body clock and can lead to decreased productivity, and that daylight saving time’s original intent isn’t as relevant today.

So it’s probably worthwhile to consider eliminating daylight saving time, although everyone — including the public — should be given a chance to weigh in. In other words, examine all consequences and don’t rush it through.

Regarding the other practice being considered for elimination — per diem spending — there are also good arguments to be made.

Spotlight PA’s report detailing per diem overspending by legislators is eye-opening, and it’s great that Butler County representatives were not among the top spenders of non-taxable money during session days on lodging, food and travel.

However, a bill introduced last month in the state Senate to completely eliminate the practice may not be the way to go.

Most county legislators noted that while they didn’t partake in per diem spending to a large extent, such funds can go a long way when making a long trip from various parts of the state to Harrisburg.

For example, legislators can attend and cast votes virtually, but they cannot speak on the floor about issues if they are not present.

Instead of eliminating the practice, hold it to a higher standard, such as accounting for every penny through receipts. There’s no doubt that per diem spending needs to be reined in, but doing that is better than getting rid of something that has a practical purpose when it’s not abused.

— NCD