THE POWER OF A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
The Connecticut legislature did something unusual this year. It passed significant salary increases for its 187 members and the six constitutional officers: the governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, secretary of the state, attorney general and comptroller. It did this with HB5406 (now Public Act 22-85) on May 3, the second-to-last day of the session with almost no debate or dissenting opinions expressed. Its passage received coverage only once in many Connecticut news outlets such as The Hartford Courant and CT Mirror and also made it into at least one national news site: U.S. News & World Report. There has been no mention since or during the Connecticut election campaigns (that I could find anyway). This topic has always generated controversy — but not this year, not this time.
The salary changes were not minor, which makes the lack of interest more surprising given that most campaigns and the media will seize on most anything to make a point against their opponents or that will sell papers or generate website clicks. For legislators, their pay was increased by an average of 43.3%. That takes their average salary from $33,427 to $47,403.
And the other six statewide elected officials received about a 60% increase to change their average salary from $130,000 to $198,188.
The bill contained myriad salary increases depending on the variety of leadership positions that are available to legislators such as deputy leader or whip. There are leadership positions not expressly named in the law but listed under member or caucus profiles such as deputy president pro tempores or caucus chairs, but presumably these positions would be captured under other named positions in the law such as deputy or assistant leader.
For a rank-and-file legislator (the lowest level salary), with no leadership post, the new law moved their salary from $28,000 to $40,000 (42.9%). But it turns out that 82%, or 153 out of 187 legislators, have some type of leadership position, which is why the average salary is skewed higher. The salary cost of these increases for all 193 people in these positions is $3.01 million and that doesn’t include fringe benefits, which would push it closer to $4 million.
As was pointed out by those who brought the bill to a vote, legislators have not received a pay increase since 2000, more than 20 years ago. Many have been trying to get raises passed for years, but the Democrat majority always backed away, fearful of the standard Republican opposition and the major political attack point it would provide.
Despite the lack of debate, the vote (95-53 in the House and 23-13 in the Senate) was mostly along party lines with Democrats in favor and Republicans against with a few switching sides. A couple of Republicans actually spoke in open support of the bill.
It has been a long time. After 20 plus years of inflation, the new pay levels are now about even with 2000.
It’s not the increases but how it was done that is a problem. Namely the two parties conspiring non-transparently at the end of session to ensure that the party machinery gets oiled.
Most Democrats were at least willing to go on the record with “yes” votes and allowed most Republicans to vote “no” in an apparent deal where both parties promised not to make it a campaign issue. The fact that no candidates, incumbents or challengers — even those with close races — have broken ranks with this agreement so far shows how powerful the two-party system is.
The second problem is that the bill changes how pay levels for legislators have always been provided — by statute. The new law keeps that
in place — kind of — for the constitutional officers anyway. These six officers’ salaries will now be automatically linked with the various statutory pay levels of state judges. So now, changing judges’ salaries will automatically change constitutional officer salaries (although the legislature could change that linkage whenever it chooses).
But legislator salaries will automatically be increased going forward, without the need for legislative action or gubernatorial approval, by tying the new salaries to a labor inflation index. So automatic increases without the need for a bill, a debate, a vote and approval by the governor. Well, that’s different.
But worse, it provides pay increases every other year — in perpetuity. Where else does that happen, anywhere, for active workers? This part just doesn’t seem right.
And finally, perhaps the bill’s most significant problem is a big picture one — one that should have been obvious to Republicans who claim aversion to big government. This change pushes the legislature closer to a full-time body, for which there has always been an undercurrent of support.
Democrats would welcome a change to a fulltime legislature. They work tirelessly at the Capitol cramming through bill after bill while fending off any Republican efforts to slow their advance. They believe in what they are doing and by and large are more ideologically committed than the Republicans. Most serious Democrats would rather be doing it full time and be compensated accordingly.
And as a few proponents mentioned, in many cases they are doing it almost full time now. And today’s crazed social media age has only exacerbated the time needed. Whenever an event occurs, legislators better have done their homework and have the “right” answer or comment ready to go — or else.
One legislator pointed out that the current legislative membership does not “represent … the best and the brightest that this state has to offer.” Does anyone really think that changing the pay will result in much better laws being passed? If ability to find party candidates to run is a problem, how about letting unaffiliated, independent candidates into a political system in which the two parties maintain a stranglehold?