Legislative payraise

The legislature is currently considering a bill that would turn them from a part-time to a full-time legislature.

Proponents argue legislating has evolved into a full-time occupation, but that's just the manifestation of hyperactive lawmaking that arises from the diffuse belief that no problem is too small for a new state law, program or grant. The solution is easy: legislate less. (WRA editorial)

I agree.

The editorial continues with a quote from proponent Rep. Christopher Caruso (D-Bridgeport) explaining that the benefit of a full-time legislature would be

"to cleanse the legislature of conflicts or perceived conflicts."

(However) His argument is refuted by Congress, which is full time and no less corrupt than the legislature. And by remaining at the seat of government for so long, members have acquired the habits of the place, which differ greatly from those of their constituents.

Even more agreement there. First, the prior Congress clearly proved that getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't stop corruption. And already you can look to our own part-time legislature which apparently is quite comfortable condoning State Rep. Pat Dillon's drunk driving.

The legislature is, IMO, a policy board. They should be less involved with the details of the legislation and provide more guidance and oversight. Wouldn't it be great if they'd been performing their oversight function with the DOT in recent years?

Tim White