I agree, but the substance of the issue is that their pay has remained the same since 2009 at $174k/year (i.e. not kept up with inflation at all) so if we want to discourage corrupt behavior then giving them a proper salary is probably a good idea if we're going to restrict other methods of building wealth.
I beg your pardon, but if that applies to Congresspeople, what about the common laborer? All I'm seeing is more pandering to those in a position of power.
Neither does Congress. Only it's funding. Still does not answer my question. Good of goose, good of gander. If the secret to a "well behaved and ethical" Congress person is more money, then please point out and explain why in the fuck I can't executives or corporations elbow deep in sketchy shit. All I see is the more money can be accrued faster, the less ethical the population a position attracts. Further, if higher wages really were that much of a miracle cure for better performing people, I'd expect to see more profit sharing with employees, whereas I typically see the exact opposite. Wherein an inordinate amount of executive effort is spent trying to maximize information asymmetry, and divide and conquering labor in terms of value extraction from them.
You still have to prove if raising wages will reduce corruption, and if so, prove that it is reasonably cost effective. Keep in mind, there are already independently wealthy people involved in government in the US, and they still engage in corruption: Trump & his family, Musk while at Doge, Chris Collins, etc.
After all, how much do you have to pay the world's richest man to keep things above board, I wonder?
