Thursday, March 22, 2007

Full-time vs. part-time...

Once again, the Connecticut legislature is considering proposals to make serving in the General Assembly a full-time position, rather than the part-time job it is now. Several proposals will be subjects of public hearings in the coming weeks, including one that would increase salaries for legislative leaders to that equal of the Lieutenant governor - $110,000 a year. Another proposal would increase salaries of all 187 legislators, who now earn in the mid- $20,000 to mid-$30,000 range.

The driving factor behind this movement is an effort to bring an end to "conflicts" that lawmakers run into when their "work" overlaps their legislative duties.

So what do you think. I'm guessing this idea doesn't have a lot of public support.


Blogger rags said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:41 AM  
Blogger rags said...

I think we're a couple of hundred years behind the times in terms of what our Founders saw their government needing to do and what we, in the 21st Century, insist our government should do.

In their time, the Founders saw all governance as a volunteer and as-needed affair, even at the national level, where people of good will put down their plows and artisan implements to make decisions that needed to be made and then returned to their hearth and homes.

Very quickly these legislators became full-time at the expense of their 'real jobs' and real lives.

Fast forward two hundred plus years. We have in CT a full-time government apparatus being managed, for the most part, by part-time legislators.

The rate and pace of complex change is so drastically different than the Framers and Founders envisioned, it's almost impossible to keep pace.

Our appetite for government goods and services has exploded exponentially while the hours of the day have remained a constant.

Into this, throw just a dash of avarice and greed (do I mean the self-serving arguments of Rep Amman? Yes, I do and a dozen others, at least) and we have a cynical electorate watching the behavior of representatives chosen by fewer total votes in every election cycle with a more jaundiced eye.

We have become one another's self-fulfilling prophesy.

We expect those whom we elect to be greedy and grasping, and are surprised when they behave as statesmen.

For their part, our elected representatives assume we have the attention span of a goldfish and the sense of history of a cat.

We all must agree if government is as important to us and to our way of life as we claim it is, then we must all be prepared to pay the price to have it.

In other words, do we deserve full-time legislators working on our behalf as their sole (not just primary) job?
If yes, we must relaize that cost is much greater than it is now, and be prepared to pay that bill.

If not, we must either become comfortable with the system we have or attempt to repair it.

I'm not optimistic we can actually do the latter and I fear we lack the vision and courage to attempt the former.

9:49 AM  
Blogger Bill Jenkins said...

A full time legislature is a very bad idea.

10:59 AM  
Blogger Ray Hackett said...

I think Rell summed it's a not a question of when they work, but more of a question of when will they stop.

2:46 PM  
Blogger mccommas said...

"No man's property is safe while the legislature is in session"

I am almost certain that a while back when I was not paying attention they jacked up thier own pay to a base of 30,000 with lots of extra helpings of taxpayer money if they are a majority or minority leader of some kind.

30,000 I think is far to much as it is. Pay them anymore than none of them will have real jobs or have any clue what us real people have to do to put meat on the table and pay the rest.

8:00 PM  
Blogger mccommas said...

rent that is.

8:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home