repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

[bob000555]

The founders built two major checks on populism into the original constitution. These were the federal courts and the United States Senate. Judges serve for life and their salary cannot be lowered while they are on the bench. This design was intended to make it possible for judges to make principled but unpopular decisions without fear of repercussions. Additionally, federal judges are appointed, rather than elected, as some state judges are. This was intended to insulate them somewhat from the riffraff of politics. Similarly, senators serve staggered six year terms, unlike representatives’ two year terms. This was done so that no matter how far public opinion swings, only one third (at most) of the senate can change at one time. This somewhat insulates the senate from public opinion and makes principled public policy possible.

 

These protections worked well for a time. The senate kept impulsive policy from being enacted and checked the House’s populism. The Courts could carry out judicial review after laws had been enacted and challenged. But, soon, one of the protections that kept populism in check vanished. Previously, senators were appointed by state legislatures rather then elected. This served to insulate the senate from electoral politics. During this time, both the Courts and the Senate were refuges for gentlemen statesmen. For the Senate, this changed with the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, which passed in 1917, during the Populist Era.

 

The chamber that was once home to Statesmen like Webster, Clay and Calhoun soon became home to odious politicians. To some degree, the Senate still provides a check on the House, but in other respects, the Senate has run amuck. Take the filibuster for example. In the past, senators could be trusted to use the filibuster sparingly, only when they were truly incensed about an issue. But, now that the Statesmen have been replaced with petulant children, they threaten to filibuster any bill that doesn’t strike their fancy.

 

If the Senate is to function in its intended manner: to be the deliberative upper chamber that checks the House’s populism, and to enact principled public policy, it needs to be populated be Statesmen. Unfortunately, the current electoral climate, Senate seats will be filled by people who are experts in electoral politics, in poll-worship, rather than people who are experts in Statesmanship, in good governance. The current debt ceiling crisis demonstrates how detrimental this can be. Traditionally, a Statesman would step in and help, but the Senate is no longer a breeding ground for Statesmen, and so they no longer exist and mere politicians are left to bicker.

 

The solution of obvious: restore the Senate to its proper place as a chamber of principled discourse, replace the politicians with Statesmen, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. What do you think?

 

 

P.S: The check provided by the courts is also under threat. When the judges do their jobs by acting as a coequal branch of government and checking the others, they are often called “activist judges” (which, in its contemporary usage, is code for “judge who made a judgment I disagree with.”)

[John Cuthber]

For the benefit of the 95% of the population who don't live in the USA, could you tell us what the 17th amendment actually is?

[bob000555]

For the benefit of the 95% of the population who don't live in the USA, could you tell us what the 17th amendment actually is?

 

I thought it was explained in the original post, but I guess not. The Seventeenth Amendment made it so that United States Senators were directly elected instead of being selected by state legislatures.

[DJBruce]

I doubt that repealing the 17th amendment to the Constitution will greatly change how senators today act. Just as the electoral college really has fairly little effect on how the president acts. If senators were to be elected by state legislators it would come down to party lines like everything does now days, and so the parties and senators would just turn their campaigning to making sure their guys won the state senate.

 

On a different note I kind of feel like you are a little rosy in your analysis of past senates. Don't get me wrong I do not think that our senate is anything special, but in 100 years I bet the outlook will be very different, and probably more positive. For example, you the statesmen you point to were very similar to current senators in that they often looked to patch problems with temporary solutions instead of looking for real solutions to the problems.

[Marat]

The fact that the majority of the members of the U.S. Senate are millionaires while the average working American earns about $40,000 a year already makes that body profoundly far removed from popular influence, since the intellectual ideology, conditioned by personal experience, which guides its members is totally alien to the majority of the people. There is already more than enough control on populism in the American political system with money having a major vote in elections alongside real humans.

 

Canada has a much less populist Senate than the United States does, with its Senators appointed until mandatory retirement at 75 by the Prime Minister from among his old cronies, political hacks, party bagmen, and former elected officials who proved so corrupt that they could no longer be elected to office and so had to get a Senate appointment to pay the rent. But even though the Senate is more far removed from popular control than the corresponding U.S. institution, Canada is a much more populist country in its social policies (free healthcare, generous welfare benefits, etc.) than the U.S. That suggests that the populist nature of a country has more to do with the basic assumptions and ideologies of the people rather than with its formal political institutions.

[jackson33]

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

 

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2

 

For the benefit of the 95% of the population who don't live in the USA, could you tell us what the 17th amendment actually is?[/Quote]

 

John C, IMO; Asking off the cuff, most Americans (99.5%) would not know either...

 

 

 

The fact that the majority of the members of the U.S. Senate are millionaires while the average working American earns about $40,000 a year already makes that body profoundly far removed from popular influence, since the intellectual ideology, conditioned by personal experience, which guides its members is totally alien to the majority of the people. There is already more than enough control on populism in the American political system with money having a major vote in elections alongside real humans.[/Quote]

 

Marat I have no idea what the validity of the 17th A, has to do with millionaires (did you forget billionaires), because it's those lowly average wage earners that elect them. More importantly wage and perks given Senators has vastly increased over the years. I suspect you believe this has somehow been caused by Capitalism or the Free Market, but to the contrary it has totally came from themselves (Congress), otherwise known as Government.

 

From 1789 to 1815 Congressmen received $6.00 daily, but only on the days they showed up. From 1815 to 1855 Congressmen received a modest salary, compared to the massive salaries of the Congressmen today....

 

In the last 25 years Congress has seen 18 salary increases totaling 277%. While the lowest paid American Workers have only seen 5 wage increases in 25 years totaling a mere 166%. In the last 25 years the cost of living has increased 251%. The Minimum Wage has not been increased since 1997. While Congressmen's pay has increased 8 out of the last 10 years. To see what Minimum Wage would be, if Congress had given American Workers the same amount of increases they took, click here.[/Quote]

 

http://walterdimmock.com/archives/2008/05/15/us-congress-salary-history/

 

In fact the founders placed a safe guard in the original "Bill of Rights", which was not ratified until 1992.

 

Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay. Ratified 5/7/1992.History

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.[/Quote]

 

27th Amendment

 

The 27th Amendment was originally proposed on September 25, 1789, as an article in the original Bill of Rights. It did not pass the required number of states with the articles we now know as the first ten amendments. It sat, unratified and with no expiration date, in constitutional limbo, for more than 80 years when Ohio ratified it to protest a congressional pay hike; no other states followed Ohio's lead, however. Again it languished, for more than 100 years.

 

In 1978, Wyoming ratified the amendment, but there was again, no follow-up by the remaining states. Then, in the early 1980's, Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator, took up the proposed amendment's cause. From 1983 to 1992, the requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and it was declared ratified on May 7, 1992 (74,003 days).[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am27

 

 

bob; There have been movements over the years to reverse the 17th A, sometimes linked with adding another Constitutional requirement for adding House members as population increases. While I don't think we need thousands of House Members (so long as it remains proportionate), allowing State Legislatures to choose Senators over the wishes of the State's electorate, seem like six of one or half a dozen of the other. Additionally, though my opinion, it would be far easier for a politician to influence a legislature over that entire electorate. All this said, here is a good article opposed to my viewpoints, even if I agree with the "Progressive Movements" of the early 20th Century, mentioned...

 

http://www.downyonderantiques.com/Reflections/Reflections016.htm

[Brainteaserfan]

The fact that the majority of the members of the U.S. Senate are millionaires while the average working American earns about $40,000 a year already makes that body profoundly far removed from popular influence, since the intellectual ideology, conditioned by personal experience, which guides its members is totally alien to the majority of the people. There is already more than enough control on populism in the American political system with money having a major vote in elections alongside real humans.

 

Canada has a much less populist Senate than the United States does, with its Senators appointed until mandatory retirement at 75 by the Prime Minister from among his old cronies, political hacks, party bagmen, and former elected officials who proved so corrupt that they could no longer be elected to office and so had to get a Senate appointment to pay the rent. But even though the Senate is more far removed from popular control than the corresponding U.S. institution, Canada is a much more populist country in its social policies (free healthcare, generous welfare benefits, etc.) than the U.S. That suggests that the populist nature of a country has more to do with the basic assumptions and ideologies of the people rather than with its formal political institutions.

In the DC area, you qualify for many financial support funds if you make less than $50,000. The cost of living is pretty high. That is not to say though that I agree with the amount that they are paid though, just that it's not as bad as it sounds.

[Marat]

Since the OP said that "the Senate kept impulsive policy from being enacted and checked the House's populism," my point about the majority of Senators today being millionaires is that they are already clearly by their very nature likely to act as opponents of populism, even though they are 'elected by the people.' American elections are so heavily influenced by money, by the ten-second soundbyte format that prohibits serious discussion, and by deliberate obfuscations of the political reality so as to enable interests totally opposed to the public nonetheless to win the public's apparent support, that no alteration in the way Senators are elected is really needed to preserve their intended role as restraints on the more popular chamber's populism.

[jackson33]

Since the OP said that "the Senate kept impulsive policy from being enacted and

checked the House's populism," my point about the majority of Senators today

being millionaires is that they are already clearly by their very nature likely

to act as opponents of populism, even though they are 'elected by the people.'

American elections are so heavily influenced by money, by the ten-second

soundbyte format that prohibits serious discussion, and by deliberate

obfuscations of the political reality so as to enable interests totally opposed

to the public nonetheless to win the public's apparent support, that no

alteration in the way Senators are elected is really needed to preserve their

intended role as restraints on the more popular chamber's populism.[/Quote]

 

Marat, that's simply not true. While about 2/3rd's of the US Senate are millionaires, during the 2009/10

session, virtually every populist/liberal issue was passed, then most often along party lines. There is no way you could convince me, Polosi or Reid (chamber leaders and millionaires) even considered voting against any liberal legislation, because they are wealthy.

 

 

Noun: populism 'pó-pyu,li-zum

 

The political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite[/Quote]

 

The Millionaire Class: Most New U.S. Senators are Rich...

 

"Some are Democrats, some are Republicans, many are Tea Party conservatives while others are unabashedly liberal," Dan Auble, who manages the center's personal-financial-disclosure database, said in a statement. "What unites these freshmen is that, on balance, they're rich."[/Quote]

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/03/09/most-new-u-s-senators-are-millionaires/

 

In the Senate, 68 legislators were estimated to be worth at least $1 million, led by Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, who was worth an estimated $214,570,011 in 2008. The average net worth across the Senate was $13,989,022.98.[/Quote]

 

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/your-senator-is-probably-a-millionaire/

 

As for money in US politics, that's just another misnomer. Ms. Clinton would have beat Obama in the 2008 primaries and Romney would have walked all over McCain. I don't want to take this thread off message, but monetary support for a candidate has rarely played the major role in politics. I will grant you the "ten second sound bites", but that's about the amount of time the average US voter takes, to make a decision.

[Moontanman]

jackson33 you seem to have a pretty good, if biased, grip on politics, it bothers me quite a bit i do not seem to have the ability to wrap my mind around the complexity of what is really going on. Can you step outside the bias of your views and help me understand? To me the more I know the less difference there seems to actually be between the different parties. To me it seems to have disintegrated into child like squabbling over sound bites as well. It is very frustrating to hear so many things asserted as truth that are self contradictory, it has almost fallen to the level of religion in my perception so a great degree. many politicians on both sides appear to actually be stupid, often claiming things that are either lies or totally misrepresenting reality in some profound manner but still asserting it like their belief in reality is somehow more significant than the actual reality of the situation and people just suck it up like air. It seems to be a two large groups of people who claim to support the population but claim the other side is biased against the population, it's very frustrating, is my perception closer to the truth or is it more of one side is correct and the other wrong depending on if you are rich or poor or some other perceptual bias?

[Brainteaserfan]

It seems to be a two large groups of people who claim to support the population but claim the other side is biased against the population, it's very frustrating, is my perception closer to the truth or is it more of one side is correct and the other wrong depending on if you are rich or poor or some other perceptual bias?

Yup, they are like that.

 

Both, IMO. It isn't just right and left, rich and poor, religious and non-religious etc, it's at least 3 dimensional. Neither party will fit into your beliefs, and even if you may agree more overall with one party, you may feel strongly about 1 particular issue, (ie power sources, abortion) and thus vote differently. If a poll is taken that says that 99.99% of the population supports something, a candidate that supports that issue may find himself not liked, even though he has one thing that people support.

[Marat]

The real influence of money in the American electoral process is in the way the elite defines the issues for the people prior to the election so as to skew their voting to support the interests of the wealthy minority. As Ramsay Clark, Johnson's Attorney-General once said, America is not a democracy but a plutocracy. Carl Schmitt, the doyen of Nazi legal theorists, who has recently undergone a revival in reputation among academics, described the situation of most democracies as follows: The people basically understand nothing about politics on their own, so they rely on the thought-collectivity or national ideology to guide their voting. This national ideology is determined by the interests of the wealthy elite, so in effect, the wealthy in every democracy select the leaders, although for show they have to do so by channelling their influence with only about 90% reliability through their manipulation of the ideology constructed to dominate the voters. We see an example of this in the U.S. today, with the response of the common people to their having to foot the bill for the gamble of Wall Street speculators having gone wrong in 2008 being the 'Tea Party' movement, which completely supports, albeit in apparently populist form, the interests of Wall Street!

 

To apply this to the theme of this thread, we can see that if background processes such as the hegemonic ideology of the elite make all democratic process in the U.S. forever anti-populist, then there is no point in making the Senate any more or any less 'popularly controlled,' since popular control of any branch of government is simply one of the illusions of the dominant ideology in America.

[jackson33]

jackson33 you seem to have a pretty good, if biased, grip on politics, it bothers me quite a bit i do not seem to have the ability to wrap my mind around the complexity of what is really going on. [/Quote]

 

Moon; With regards to historical politics, in this case the 17th A, money or influence in the elections or the legal process, I can only offer my opinions, then offering some evidence for those opinions. Your perception of "bias" or anyone else's falls under ideology, which in my case from a "Constitutional Conservative" viewpoint, is contrary to "Liberal" or "Progressive" ideology.

 

 

Can you step outside the bias of your views and help me understand? To me the more I know the less difference there seems to actually be between the different parties.[/Quote]

 

Of the 20 plus actual US Political Parties, the two major and dominant parties by necessity to get elected are pretty much alike. The US electorate is slightly right of center and the growing segments of that electorate, the "Independents", are leaning to the right, at least regarding social or domestic issues.

 

To me it seems to have disintegrated into child like squabbling over sound bites as well. It is very

frustrating to hear so many things asserted as truth that are self contradictory, it has almost fallen to the level of religion in my perception so a great degree.[/Quote]

 

They are playing to the electorate with those sound bites and sound bites are produced by media. As inferred earlier, people can and will remember only what they wish. The powerful "I paid for this microphone, now turn it on" (Reagan) or the weak "Read my lips, no new taxes" of course from Bush41 and may have cost him his re-election.

 

 

It seems to be a two large groups of people who claim to support the population but claim the other side is biased against the population, it's very frustrating, is my perception closer to the truth or is it more of one side is correct and the other wrong depending on if you are rich or

poor or some other perceptual bias?[/Quote]

 

I believe most (both sides) really do support THEIR electorate and the way it should be, but as in the 2010 elections those electorates had changed.

 

As to the wealthy or poor and their bias or voting; The Original Colonial State Laws, the Constitution and resulting Federalist Papers (selling the C), were fearful of an ill informed electorate and where/when/how that electorate could eventually vote themselves a piece of the pie.

 

 

 

To apply this to the theme of this thread, we can see that if background processes such as the hegemonic ideology of the elite make all democratic process in the U.S. forever anti-populist, then there is no point in making the Senate any more or any less 'popularly controlled,' since popular control of any branch of government is simply one of the illusions of the dominant ideology in America. [/Quote]

 

Marat; If you were talking about the "Establishment Parties" membership, which are not necessarily the very wealthy opposed to Corporate America whom support our Capitalist, Free Market principles and are literally owned by common people (whatever that means), I might agree. The problem here is that since maybe Lyndon Johnson, Eisenhower or FDR before them the establishment chosen candidates have not done very well and this includes notables like McCain, Hillary Clinton and Gore.

 

"Making the Senate" Nationally "popularly controlled" has never been the objective. Under the Constitution they were given six year terms to maintain continuity in Congress, then primarily for Federal Obligations, which have long been exaggerated. Any illusion would be in thinking the Senator from one State, should be admired by the electorate of the other 49 States.

 

Now here is some food for thought and on topic; If State Legislatures chose their Senators; 26 are Republican controlled as of 2011, 15 Democrat and 8 Split. What do you believe the results would be in 10 years and was before that 17th amendment? So much for our "Check and Balance System", which the 17A may have enhanced.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

[Moontanman]

Thanks for answering jackson, i do admit to a bias but I shy away from the extreme of either side but it always seems the extremes are the ones who get the sound bites. It would be much easier for me to get closer to the right if they would get out of bed with the religious right but that seems unlikely any time soon. It seems a shame to me that our country is basically run by the extremes and moderates are ignored, possibly their sound bites are not exciting enough.

[JohnB]

I long ago came to realise that the traditional Left/Right political spectum is wrong.

 

The true political spectrum has Statism (Gov controls everything) at one end and Anerchy (Gov controls nothing) at the other.

 

From this POV political parties in Democracies generally fall in the centre of spectrum with the "Traditional Left" being slightly more "Statist" than the "Traditional Right". This also puts both the "extreme" left and right exactly where they belong, side by side and well up the road to "Statism".

 

When viewed from this POV a lot of the seeming contradictions disappear and the similarities between the two major sides becomes apparent. They are similar because they are fighting for the support of the same people, that band in the middle who want some, but not total, government control.

Edited July 5, 2011 by JohnB

[Brainteaserfan]

I long ago came to realise that the traditional Left/Right political spectum is wrong.

 

The true political spectrum has Statism (Gov controls everything) at one end and Anerchy (Gov controls nothing) at the other.

 

From this POV political parties in Democracies generally fall in the centre of spectrum with the "Traditional Left" being slightly more "Statist" than the "Traditional Right". This also puts both the "extreme" left and right exactly where they belong, side by side and well up the road to "Statism".

 

When viewed from this POV a lot of the seeming contradictions disappear and the similarities between the two major sides becomes apparent. They are similar because they are fighting for the support of the same people, that band in the middle who want some, but not total, government control.

Not all laws deal with govermental control. For instance, if a party wants to pass a prochoice law, which side of the political spectrum does that push the party toward? That is why, IMO, it is not two dimensional.

[Marat]

Another reason the political dynamic is not two-dimensional is that the private sphere itself contains what are functionally 'governments,' in the form of large concentrations of capital which can control people's lives, such as employing them, downsizing them, cutting their wages, denying them healthcare coverage, dumping toxins into the environment, forming monopolies to control prices, establishing dangerous workplace conditions, spying on employee's lockers, inspecting employees for drug use, evicting them from their homes because their financial distress doesn't permit them to make the mortgage payments at the moment, charging absurdly high interest rates on credit cards and hiding the contractual terms that permit this in the fine print, etc. What political government is ever so tyrannical as these private dinosaurs roaming the society and abusing people caught in their claws?

 

These 'private governments' also exude a type of self-protecting toxin through the social environment, which is the hegemonic thinking they impose on the society to ensure that the one power that could threaten them -- the common people acting collectively at the ballot box -- is so alienated from its true interests that it does not vote to protect itself from them. The primary hegemonic toxin protecting private capitalist 'governments' today is the notion that smaller public government means more freedom for everyone. What no one notices is that the more disempowered the only government on the scence which the people can control through their voting becomes -- mainly through everyone voting for reduced taxation -- the weaker the people become against the capitalist predators who most threaten them, and who could only have been controlled through strong government power.

[waitforufo]

Prior to the 17th amendment I believe US Senators were selected by the State Senators of each state. Generally they selected a State Senator to serve in the US Senate.

 

What impact did this have?

 

Well, State Senators are elected from state districts which are determined by geography not population. This means that each State Senate is dominated by people from rural areas. So consider California or New York. These are States with high populations in dense urban areas. Yet their State Senate is dominated by people from rural areas.

 

So now consider what happens when US Senators are selected by and from the ranks of State Senators. Well each State is likely to pick a person from a rural area regardless of the State’s population. So New York and California are going to send people from their farming areas, country gentlemen if you will, to the US Senate where they will work with Senators from Kansas and Wyoming.

 

You think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both from the landed gentry, thought that was a good idea? My guess is yes. I’m sure many of the other wealthy land owners of the time thought it was a good idea as well.

 

Personally I think going back would be a good idea. But I live in a rather rural area.

[bob000555]

Prior to the 17th amendment I believe US Senators were selected by the State Senators of each state. Generally they selected a State Senator to serve in the US Senate.

 

What impact did this have?

 

Well, State Senators are elected from state districts which are determined by geography not population. This means that each State Senate is dominated by people from rural areas. So consider California or New York. These are States with high populations in dense urban areas. Yet their State Senate is dominated by people from rural areas.

 

So now consider what happens when US Senators are selected by and from the ranks of State Senators. Well each State is likely to pick a person from a rural area regardless of the State’s population. So New York and California are going to send people from their farming areas, country gentlemen if you will, to the US Senate where they will work with Senators from Kansas and Wyoming.

 

You think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both from the landed gentry, thought that was a good idea? My guess is yes. I’m sure many of the other wealthy land owners of the time thought it was a good idea as well.

 

Personally I think going back would be a good idea. But I live in a rather rural area.

 

Would you happen to have a citation for your claim that most early United States Senators were former State Senators? The three early senators with whom I am most familiar would be the "Great Triumvirate" of Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay, only one of whom, Clay, was a State Senator before becoming a United States Senator.

 

I agree with your idea that the function of the former method of selecting Senators served to make them more likely to be members of the elite/gentry. As an admitted elitist I consider this to be a rather good thing. As to Marat's point that senators already tend to be rich and therefore elite/anti-populist, I would point out that the wealthy and the elite are two very different classes and that the nouveau riche are typically excluded by the later.

 

In the current system, the selection pressures for Senators are vote getting ability and, to the extent that wealth can help get votes by funding a campaign, wealth. I would argue that these have almost nothing to do with the ability to govern and therefore lead to the selection of "bad" Senators. On the other hand, the qualities necessary for admission to the elite include intellect, education and other specialized skills in addition to wealth. An example of a "specialized skill" of the elite would be their networking ability. The fact that someone has managed to be selected by the state legislature suggests that they are able to deal with their fellow elites which suggests that they will be able to deal with their fellow Senators and other government officials to get favorable policy for their constituents

Edited July 9, 2011 by bob000555

[jackson33]

One thing you might keep in mind, is that from 1789 to 1815 Congressmen, earned 6.00 per session attended, with virtually no perks. Since requirements to vote into State Legislatures, including owning property (vested interest), generally meaning a farm/business, I'd suggest FEW State Legislatures were even interested in representing their State. Even by 1914 the wages, would normally had not made leaving the farm, business or many jobs worth the effort and those that chose to serve, did so, out of some patriotic duty or maybe civic obligation.

 

From 1789 to 1815 Congressmen received $6.00 daily, but only on the days they showed up. From 1815 to 1855 Congressmen received a modest salary, compared to the massive salaries of the Congressmen today. In 1855 their salaries increased to $3,000 annually. Then in 1865 they gave themselves a 66% increase to $5,000 annually. 6 years later they boosted their salaries another 50% to $7,500 per year. The American People became so outraged by the greed that congressmen were showing, that congress was forced to take a 33% paycut, which lasted 34 years until 1907, at which time they gave themselves another 50% increase back to $7,500 annually. They took two other paycuts, both of which were during the Great Depression, for a total of 15%. These are the only 3 times in American History that any Congressmen have ever taken salary cuts. [/Quote]

 

http://walterdimmock.com/archives/2008/05/15/us-congress-salary-history/

 

1789-1815 -- $6.00 per diem

1815-1817 -- $1,500 per annum

1817-1855 -- $8.00 per diem

1855-1865 -- $3,000 per annum

1865-1871 -- $5,000 per annum

1871-1873 -- $7,500 per annum

1873-1907 -- $5,000 per annum

1907-1925 -- $7,500 per annum[/Quote]

 

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senate_salaries.htm

 

Having said that, what better person could a State Legislature actually choose to represent the sentiments if their State, than a member or former member of that States Legislature?

 

In fairness, remember inflation from 1789 to about 1904 was near -0- and has been over 100% since 1904...

[Marat]

Though the point is often made that historical wages and prices are not closely comparable with modern prices, since we are comparing two entirely different forms of society. One Prussian government memorandum from 1825 recorded a discussion among government officials about hardships caused by the inflation of the time, and their conclusion was that so little of the economy was a money economy as opposed to barter or donations required by custom (e.g., the town minister had to be provided with fire wood for free) that the currency deflation would not affect people that much. Similarly, in a world where medical care cost almost nothing by today's standards, the significance of the relatively high cost of clothing (Marx was sometimes confined to his house because he had to pawn his clothes to raise cash, something that would make no economic sense today) would have to be discounted -- to name just one incommensurability between costs, prices, and living standards between today and yesterday.