Guest essay by Paul Jehle
On May 7, 1992, the 27th Amendment, the last amendment to date added to the U.S. Constitution, was ratified. However, its history is profoundly applicable today. It was initially proposed as a part of the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789, during the first Congress, by James Madison, fulfilling a campaign promise he made in this regard.
Madison had remarked that Article I, Section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution was “an indecent thing” – giving authority to the Congress to vote itself pay raises. Due to this and other concerns brought up during the State ratification debates in 1787-1788, Madison promised to bring amendments to the first Congress. Over 120 were initially brought forward, but only 12 were proposed. Of these, ten were ratified by three fourths of the States in 1791.One of the two dropped was this – “no law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”By 1791 only six States had ratified it, short of the nine required at the time.
Madison was not alone in his concern that a clause allowing Congress to vote itself pay raises could be abused. Theodore Sedgewick from Massachusetts stated “can a man… who has the least respect for the good opinion of his fellow countrymen, go home to his constituents, after having robbed them by voting himself an exorbitant salary? This principle will be a most powerful check… if left themselves to provide for their own payment, as long as they wish for the good opinion of mankind, they will assess no more than they really deserve, as a compensation for their services.” In 1789, the salary of a Congressman was $6 per day. In 1815, it was raised to $1,500 per year, and nearly every Congressman who voted for the raise was voted out of office at the next election!
Probably the most articulate opponent of the clause in 1787 was the aging Benjamin Franklin. He stated “Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice–the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall at the same time be a place of profit and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.”Franklin wanted no salary for any office, but that would eliminate qualified candidates who were not wealthy enough to forego all pay.
Franklin then prophesied of this clause “Sir, though we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be of long continuance. Reasons will never be wanting for proposed augmentations; and there will always be party for giving more to the ruler, that the rulers may be able to return to give more to them. Hence, as all history informs us, there has been in every state and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between governing and the governed, the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less.”His warning has of course come true. He had already helped put in his own State’s constitution of Pennsylvania this clause “Wherefore, whenever an office, through increase of fees or otherwise, becomes so profitable, as to occasion many to apply for it, the profits ought to be lessened by the legislature.”
The concept of putting an election between any pay raise and its implementation lay dormant on the books for over 200 years! So how was it resurrected? The little known story involves a college essay written by Gregory Watson, a student at the University of Texas. His professor, in 1982, merely assigned an essay to be written about the governmental process. Watson chose the un-ratified amendment addressing the pay raises of Congress for his essay topic. He wrote, “Congress in December of 1981 had given itself a unique tax break applicable only to members of Congress and tried to hide it in a bill to address the needs of persons in the coal mining industry…” This was nothing more than a backdoor pay raise for Congress – and this was wrong, thought Watson. He was right, though he only got a C for his essay. Watson recalls that the teaching assistant and Professor thought the issue was a bit trivial.
During the 19th century, nearly every time a Congress raised its pay, most were voted out of office. This was the original intent; that abuse of power would be checked by the electorate. However, the 20th century has seen a full-scale corruption of this clause. Now members of Congress are treated as privileged. With lucrative pay, people have “moved heaven and earth” to get elected as Franklin warned. In addition to present day salaries of $174,000, they have numerous fringe benefits paid for by taxpayers such as tax deductions, travel allowances, funds to hire staff and assistants, free mailing as well as money for several offices.
What is probably of greatest concern is the fact that in addition to all this, they get a special life and health insurance program that common Americans cannot obtain. In addition, they receive a retirement pension after leaving office. This clearly violates the “title of nobility” clause of Article I, Sections 9-10.The whole purpose of public service is turned on its head when entitlements – political careers and retirement programs – are now part of “public service.”
Gregory Watson, a single individual, and a student whose essay was thought to be “trivial”, single-handedly resurrected a lost amendment by writing letters, faxing and making phone calls for years that is now a part of our Constitution! It is a lesson we can all learn from today. Now it is our turn, the people at large. Entitlements are now built into our system so they “cannot be cut.” These perks comprise an ever-growing percent of our federal and state budgets. So what should we do?
Sam Adams articulated that “neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” We no longer vote out those who raise their salaries and secure benefits at our expense in violation of their oath. Until we repent from sins of omission (remaining passive or not voting at all) or commission (putting the love of money ahead of virtue and character), corruption will continue. God help us see a revival of those who bring virtue back as a part of their character, for the people have the constitutional power to remove entitlements!
Originally published by Plymouth Rock Foundation in its E-News – May 2015.
Educator, author and speaker Dr. Paul Jehle became Plymouth Rock Foundation’s third Executive Director in 2006, having been the Foundation’s Education Director since 1988. He serves the Plymouth, Massachusetts community via historic tours. Dr. Jehle founded The New Testament Christian School in 1980. Hel has served as the Senior Pastor of The New Testament Church since 1987. Paul and his wife Charlene have two grown children.
© 2015 Used by Permission
No comments yet.