Not only that, but the *salary* they earn is almost petty-cash, considering all the other monies doled out to each member. Unless I'm much mistaken, they do not pay the salaries of their staff nor the fee for office upkeep out of their *yearly wages* -- they all have an enormous expense allowance/budget, travel, clothing, food, all manner of items that the taxpayer foots for them but pays for himself out of what he truly earns.
We are discussing whether to pay for something --- say, a TV set --- $300 or $500. You come in and say, why do you need tv in the first place? This may be an interesting argument, but it is unrelated to what we discussed before.
If you care, you might want to consider this question: even if they were employed part-time, by what standards should they NOT get more. They now make in a year what a moron like Adam Sandler makes in two days. I mean it literally: he makes $5M a week. Even if senators were working part-time, isn't it fair that they make at least some fraction of that? They make now about $3,000 per week. A raise to 1/10 of Sander's does not seem excessive, right?