About two weeks ago, state lawmakers voted themselves an $11,000 pay hike that the vast majority of Pennsylvanians believe was unwarranted and improper. Last week, lawmakers prepared to receive the additional money through a clever mechanism called "unvouchered expenses," that the average Pennsylvanian would risk being fired for attempting.

Some might argue that "unvouchered expenses," a backdoor method of sidestepping the obvious intent of a state constitutional provision barring legislative pay raises from taking effect until after the following election, are illegal. Others might argue that using the unvouchered expense technique is immoral and clearly conflicts with the intent of the law. But beyond the legality debate, few would argue that this unorthodox approach to taking the controversial pay hike early is the right thing to do.

Yet, many lawmakers in Harrisburg have been quick to point to earlier court rulings to make the point that it is legal. But even if state courts have found the practice to not be illegal, it will be interesting to hear lawmakers explain why they believe it is the right thing to do.

To the average citizen, the term "unvouchered expense" is hard to fathom. Most people understand expenses to be documented costs that are reimbursed by an employer. But unvouchered expenses are, by definition, undocumented and in any other scenario would likely be rejected - and the cause for disciplinary action or dismissal.

Pennsylvania's lawmakers have demonstrated remarkable gall and arrogance in voting themselves a pay hike that nearly every citizen opposes. Using a technically legal, but ethically wrong, method to circumvent the state constitution only makes their arrogance all the more obvious and reprehensible.

Lawmakers might have gone too far with the July 2005 pay hike vote. Voters could surprise them the next time they face re-election in November 2006. Let's hope they do.