Apparently driven by his pious desire to advocate for the good people of Bridgeport, State Representative Christopher Caruso, of Bridgeport, threw another pitch for a full-time legislature to the Courant’s Capitol Watch yesterday.

“You’re losing a lot of your persuasive debaters,” said Rep. Christopher Caruso, a Bridgeport Democrat who has served 18 years at the Capitol. “You look at the Republican bench now, and you’ve got a real thin bench. In the floor debates, it’s the same four or five people. This part-time legislature is having an effect. You just don’t have the quality now. It’s tough.” (Emphasis added)

There – you see that? Chris Caruso’s heart is so big that he even has room to care about the Republican ranks in the General Assembly.  Nonetheless, Caruso quickly draws the issue back around to one of his favorite topics (other than John Rowland’s pension) – a full time legislature.

You see, after having successfully eliminated the need for a prospective legislator to raise money for elective office, Caruso’s next act would be to make the legislature a full-time gig, which obviously would require a commensurate full-time salary.  ‘Big Chris’ is working hard for the people, and he wants to get paid by the people – all the time.

When you put them all together - public financing of campaigns, full time legislature, and legislative pay raises, it isn’t hard to see what Rep. Caruso wants to create: career politicians who never have to actually interact with the people they purport to represent. 

They wouldn’t have to talk to people to raise 85% of their campaign money, meaning that Representatives like Caruso can do television ads or direct mail instead of those tough door-to-door campaigns.  They won’t have to be real estate agents, lawyers, police officers, bankers, or property managers, and many of them would – like federal lawmakers - get apartments in Hartford instead of having to commute every day. 

Lawmakers would be able to simply make laws without the bother of constituents; and while that probably sounds good to some legislators, it would be a really lousy deal for the rest of us.

Caruso is probably right that there is a need for institutional reforms under the Gold Dome in Hartford.  Giving State Senators a four or six year term, instead of the current two year stint, would save the taxpayers a significant sum of public financing money.  But it would also provide current legislators a big incentive to distinguish themselves to their constituents so that they can be ‘promoted’ to the Senate and not have an electoral bullseye on their back every even-numbered year.  And new entrants to the Senate could better structure their careers around a six-year plan instead of a two-year hiatus.

More broadly, (and this is going to seem counter-intuitive to Rep. Caruso) perhaps we actually need to shorten the legislative session instead of expanding it to the entire year.  The legislature in Virginia, for example, has a ”long session” during a non-election year of 60 days, and during an election year they have a 30 day “short session”.  Legislators spend the months before session doing research, holding negotiations with fellow lawmakers, talking to constituents, and drafting bills.  Time actually “in session” is dedicated to public hearings and votes.

Watchers of the Connecticut General Assembly, and in particular the House of Representatives, know that the legislators spend a great deal of time thanking the “Sisters of the Order of Perpetual Motion” for their dedicated service instead of legislating.  Before we go paying for a full-time legislature, maybe we should try to get more bang for the bucks we are already spending first.