It’s about time. After nibbling around the edges the last few years, Kevin Gaughan is going for the throat of bloated government.

The civic activist Tuesday announced the latest—and juiciest—target in his government-downsizing crusade: Albany. He wants to cut the State Senate from 62 to 50 members and chop the Assembly down to size, from 150 to 125.

Given the general impotence of state lawmakers, biting off fewer than 20 percent of them amounts to an appetizer. But, hey, you gotta start somewhere.

The big game in Gaughan’s smaller-government safari always has been Albany. State government is the Center of Suet, the Dukedom of Dysfunction, the Barony of Bloat.

Taking a hatchet to the Legislature’s inflated numbers is a justifiable civic assault. Virtually every decision in this state is hashed out by the notorious Three Men in a Room: the governor and the heads of the ruling parties in the Assembly and the Senate—David Paterson, Assembly boss Sheldon Silver and Senate head John Sampson. No bill makes it to a vote without the blessing of Silver and Sampson. Virtually every Paterson idea has to survive a Silver-Sampson gantlet.

Three men. Which means there are 210 other state legislators who—during weak or inebriated moments—admit that their primary function is convincing voters that they actually do something. Legislators are rewarded for following the leader. Independence is punished by anything from banishment to a smaller office to denial of pay-padding, no-show committee jobs. If it sounds like one big insider scam, well, it is.

If three men essentially run things, it raises the question: Why do we need the other 210 legislators (19 of them from Western New York)—many of whom work other jobs?

Answer:We don’t. OK, they are not totally dispensable.

But in a state with a$9.2 billion deficit, where fees and taxes are piled Everesthigh, you bet we can get along with fewer legislators. Particularly when it costs us about $1 million per year for the care and feeding of each: The 212-member Legislature eats up 228 million budget dollars. A nearly 20 percent downsize saves, in Gaughan’s estimate, about $37 million. In this case, less is more. Way more.

“For legislators to raise taxes and lay off workers without first sacrificing themselves is deeply wrong,” Gaughan said. “People, rather than politicians, should decide the size and cost of government.”

I think that most folks are on board with that. If the Albany downsizing idea was put to a vote, I have little doubt that it would pass in a landslide. But I am not trying to fool anybody. As with most desperately needed Albany reforms, this thing has as much chance of getting to the voters as I do of winning “Dancing With the Stars.”

Unlike local downsizings, which can be forced to a vote by petition, legislators have to agree to a self-sacrificing referendum. Given that they have the survival instincts of a leg-trapped raccoon, I do not see that happening. Unless and until something changes, the idea—as worthy and needed and timely as it is— amounts to wishful thinking.

Gaughan admits that it’s “a stretch.” But somebody has to try.

“Legislators are up for election [this year],” he added. “I’m trying to make this part of the [campaign] conversation.”

He is not the only one. Rick Lazio, a Republican running for governor, wants to do away with the 62-member Senate —a deeper cut than the one proposed by Gaughan.

If talking about this is the first step to doing it, then I am happy to hear it. But do not get giddy. When it comes to Albany and reform, the road is long. And usually endless.

desmonde@buffnews.comnull