Editor's note: Here is a sampling of readers' comments about our Wednesday editorial: "We like the idea of reviewing effectiveness of state agencies." This editorial pertained to Senate Bill 223, which, if approved, would give state agencies an expiration date unless they are renewed by legislation. The comments were posted on times-herald.com.

-- The ongoing review of state agencies and their budgets is good and necessary. However, passage of this bill is nothing more than a "see-what-I've-done" bill that some will point to in their re-election campaigns later this year. If passed by the House and eventually signed by the governor, I doubt it will have any significant impact on governmental operations. Are there some agencies that could go? No doubt there is, but most agencies of any import are created to deal with specific ongoing needs or handle obligations mandated by the federal government.

-- It sounds good in theory, but it's just another level of government that won't have much power or authority and will likely be made up of people who have no idea what each agency actually does.

-- It's about time that we start looking at the size of all government agencies and begin phasing them out. Well done.

-- It would be beneficial to have equal numbers of ordinary citizens on the panel, if this legislation is passed. Legislators often have bias due to the very office they hold because they regularly interact with government agencies.

-- Glad that bureaucracy can be reduced, thus improving efficiency. Corporations do this all the time because they have competition. Government has no competition. The states with inefficient agencies become less desirable for new business and residents while having higher taxes and cost of living. Let us hope that our elected officials will do what they say.