When tax cuts are a violation of the Constitution

First of all, I don't agree with the notion that government officials should get to establish their current or future compensation. So please take that as a grain of salt as I use the constitution as an argument against the Obama tax cuts. Yes, "Obama tax cuts". If Afghanistan is Obama's war then by the same logic Bush's tax cuts are now Obama's, I'll point you to a signature if you disagree.

I have a couple other quick suggestions to make so that I can claim to be constructive and not just a naysayer.

>>The salaries for the Executive and Legislative branches should be a reflection of the economic status of the country based on actual metrics such as GDP and/or median income.

>>The long term benefits of each member should also be a reflection of the growth or decline of the country during their tenure.

>>Lobbyists should be exempt from any current or pending benefits from the government. (It seems to makes sense that elected officials should lose benefits should they chose to exploit the connections established during public tenure. Such a policy would likely not be very effective for stopping revolving door issues between government and industry but at least it will slightly lower expenditures and establish a positive incentive structure. This should also help to protect against financial feedback loops between government officials and lobbyists.)

Now, with that said I think there is little doubt that the salaries of most elected officials are merely bread crumbs for the total incomes of such individuals (see http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php). For example President Obama, Bush(s), Clinton, etc. are all millionaires as a direct result of their political endeavors, not the 400k they make per year as president. Be it a result of book deals, speaking events or less legal means such as: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070103008.html or http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/washington/18dodd.html or http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/25/rangel.ethics/index.html?iref=allsearch or http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/us/politics/12boehner.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1294747825-bHxQvr6L60Dv4iPu9ON1kg

Note: I don't begrudge anyone for the amount of money they make so long as it is moral and legal.

Now to the meat of the post:

AMENDMENT XXVII
Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

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


Total compensation is not just a measurement of income but also an offset from taxes. Therefore, tax cuts that (disproportionally) benefit Senators and Representatives violate the 27th Amendment in that they are laws that very the compensation of Senators and Representatives and these changes take effect within their own terms.

So is it any wonder that the Obama tax cuts passed (again)? Why would the legislature or Obama be against receiving a huge increase in income? These tax cuts were unconstitutional with Bush as president and still are with Obama.

Note: Now only the Republican side matters in this picture.

References:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html

House & Senate Salaries (Interesting note: In 1990 the Senator's pay began to outpace Representative's pay, this lasted until 1992)
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

President's Salary
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presidentialpay.htm
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-53.pdf
Random Note: While researching different resources on presidential salaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) I noticed the following image:

Wikipedia for "Bush Tax Cuts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

A final note:

A picture really is worth a thousand words.