The controversial legislative pay raise was repealed late last year, but Pennsylvanians are being reminded of the arrogance and sense of entitlement on display soon after the pay raise was passed in early July of 2005. Three state lawmakers who left the General Assembly in November — and who live less than 30 miles from Harrisburg — have cashed in per diems totaling $37,000.

Per diems are reimbursements for lodging and food expenses that lawmakers theoretically have incurred while in Harrisburg on official state business.

In the days immediately following the controversial pay-raise vote, Pennsylvanians were introduced to the term "unvouchered expenses," which were revealed to be little more than false expense reports used by lawmakers to get the extra income associated with the pay-raise vote through monthly expense checks. Unvouchered expenses can be considered the big brother to per diems; both are expense reports that require no receipts, unlike expense reports in virtually all of private industry.

Unvouchered expenses were used by many state lawmakers eager to boost their take-home pay because additional money related to the pay-raise vote could not be added to the lawmakers' paychecks due to the state constitution's prohibition against a pay increase from taking effect until after the next election.

But more than a few Pennsylvania lawmakers, some of whom have demonstrated a habit of ignoring the state constitution, have been able to use the bogus expense reports —or unvouchered expenses —because the state Supreme Court had in the past looked the other way when the practice was challenged in court.

The parting shot from former Senate Majority Leader David "Chip"Brightbill, who lives about 20 miles from Harrisburg, was for $17,724, representing per diem payments going back to 2003. In addition to his per diems, Brightbill earned $105,000 in his legislative post last year.

With many people routinely commuting more than 30 miles a day, a distance similar to the drive from Butler to Pittsburgh, a 20-mile commute should not entitle a state lawmaker to per diems meant to cover lodging. Recent reform measures in the House and Senate would ban per diems for lawmakers living within 50 miles of Harrisburg, although meal allowances of $45 would be allowed.

That's an appropriate and long-overdue change, but lawmakers should be required to provide receipts to prove their actual meal expenses. Or, they should explain why they cannot provide receipts.

While Brightbill's cashing in his per diem jackpot is a final thumbing of his nose at voters and taxpayers, he says that he is taking only compensation to which he is entitled.

His actual expenses are almost certainly thousands of dollars less than his per diem compensation. So, while he might be correct in saying it is legal, he cannot claim it is right.

Former Rep. Mark McNaughton, who lives in Harrisburg, claimed per diems of $10,436 going back to 2003. Former Rep. Peter Zug, who lives about 30 miles from Harrisburg, claimed per diems for $9,164, for a period from 2004 through 2006.

Considering the ill-fated 2 a.m. pay-raise vote of 2005, the 2001 pension grab, the use of unvouched expenses and repeated failures to pass a lobbyist reporting and regulation law for several years, the abuse of per diems ranks fairly low on the scale of Harrisburg scandals. Still, lawmakers should clean up per diems — and require receipts — if they have any hope of portraying themselves as public servants rather than self-serving politicians.