Periodically you'll hear someone call for states to move to a unicameral legislature. But the Topeka Capital-Journal has what is probably a better proposal: reduce the number of legislators.

"It it's worth a review from time to time," the editorial board says, "to see just how many legislators we need milling around the aisles of the statehouse each year — that is, if they need to meet each year.

Some state legislatures, such as Texas, convene just once every two years. Only four states have reduced the size of their legislatures in the last 30 years: Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and North Dakota.

There's something intuitively appealing about the idea. Yes, bureaucrats may get increased power. But it's the legislators who write the laws that create the programs that establish the bureaucracies in the first place. With comparatively more to do, they won't have as much time to delve into issues. On the surface, that's a bad thing, but experts in government policy too often become enamored of government taking action within a policy area.

Nathan Benefield, of the Commonwealth Foundation, cautions however that "reducing the size of the legislature on its own--as a stand-alone reform--will not likely improve state government efficiency or effectiveness." He points out that the more "professional" a legislature is, regardless of its size, the more ambitious it will be. "The number of staff per lawmaker, the pay of lawmakers, and the time in session have a strong correlation with the level of spending, taxes, and regulations enacted by state government."

Time for some modest ambitions in government.