>

Must be nice to get a pay bump that is more than what the average American makes in a year.
Under no circumstance should anyone be able to vote to give themselves more pay. >

That is somewhat comforting, but only prohibits the pay increase affecting the current session. In that members can serve indefinitely (there have been 33 house members who have served for 40 years or longer), this amendment is somewhat anemic.
My stance on this matter actually formed based on actions taken by the board of trustees my local city college. Amidst budgetary concerns (which led to the cutting of nearly 500 classes and the termination of over two dozen full-time professors), the board voted to increase their salaries by 100%. This is one of the absolute worst forms of corruption in my opinion, and seeing it happen in government is absolutely infuriating.
The clown show that's "representing" us should be representing us, not enriching themselves and working on behalf of the corrupt and wealthy. >

Of course! But they want to cut staffer's pay, and even eliminate some positions. >

So begins that inflation-wage spiral Jerome Powell keeps talking about… >

Not like the federal minimum wage needs adjusting