#2 - The COLA business seems to be contradicting the 27th amendment.

#3 - The pay rate also hurts because numerous states base their filing fee on 1% of the salary (which is $1621 right now, and due to go up, I would bet). I could get into my ideas on filing fees later.

#4 - Better pay for staffers is a better idea than continual payraises for Representatives. Do lobbyists have to pay a fee when they register as lobbyists? That would be a fun way to try and generate some more money from lobbyists. Granted, they might lobby against such fees too.

Better yet, pay them 2 million a year. Let that include all they can spend on their campaigns.  Much cheaper than our current process.  

I'm not seeing the problem with laws being written by people moonlighting as waiters and waitresses.

Thisw is aside from what a fair wage is.

(I'm also not seeing the proff that you "cannot" hire "good" or "diverse" talen fresh out of school for the wages Congress pays.

I'm'na bet you can.  I'm'n'a bet it's not the world's cushiest job, but neither are a lot of other options for people that age; college or no.

As a former Congressional staffer, I am 100% in favor of pay raise for them.  I didn't know trust fund kids on Capitol Hill but I knew a ton who lived in group houses with 5 other people and worked second jobs to make ends meet.

Longevity is a huge problem there.  I stayed 8+ years but most people stay about 2 which is barely enough to figure out the lay of the land.  They move on at some point when they either burn out on the hours or decide it is time to settle down. They realize you can't raise a family on either the salary or 60 hour weeks which are common.

The best reason for a pay raise for Congressional staffers is this - Do you really want a sleep deprived 20-something working 80 hours a week at two jobs writing your laws?  Think about it.

One of the very few such spoilsports is Senator Russell Feingold, a liberal Wisconsin Democrat who for several years has introduced an amendment to stop the pay raise, and each time has seen his amendment tabled -- i.e., killed without being debated and voted on -- by a lopsided Senate majority.

"I object to the process," he said during a phone conversation last week. "This automatic, stealth pay-raise system is absolutely wrong. Especially now, when we're running the biggest deficits in US history, when so many people are out of work -- I find it startling that Congress would feel comfortable voting itself a pay raise."

And what kind of reaction does he get from his colleagues when he offers his amendment?

"It's not my most popular moment," Feingold concedes. "I get the coldest stares." Some senators try to reason with him. "They tell me about their kids' tuition. Or they say, 'Don't you think you're worth more money?' " He tells them that if they think they deserve an increase, they should be willing to vote for one.

Feingold puts his own money where his mouth is, refusing any increase in pay during each six-year senatorial term. Though he is perhaps the least affluent member of the Senate, he has returned more than $50,000 to the Treasury over the past 11 years. Meanwhile, multimillionaire senators like Ted Kennedy, Jon Corzine, and Majority Leader Bill Frist vote to table Feingold's amendment and preserve the annual stealth pay raise.

http://www.russfeingold.org/pay_raise_jan_04.php

Labor markets often don't just rely on money to pull people in. So too is there a need for that old villain experience. Members of Congress don't want to be constrained to hire experts for their staff. They want any person who will find the offer to work with them as a serious gesture. Namely, young people eager to get a foot in the door, attractive women who want to be around people of power, or someone's kid who wants to establish his or her own career in politics.

The illusion is that votes aren't already bought. It's as if people suspend their disbelief that you can't tell how a person will vote before it happens. If that were so, leadership would not agonize how to set agendas and amendments. Instead it is very much the case that a member of Congress bats for the home team, whether he or she explictly is paid to do so, or only impliedly so.

It's true that affordable housing is an issue in the District and across the country. Vouchers for Congressional staff (or even poorer members) would be a good start. I don't know if staff also get Metrochecks (as do Administration employees) and the other perks that make life bearable. But that would be where to start, not to artificially raise the pay thinking it would achieve the same outcome.