I don't know off-hand how the pay of most state legislators compares with that of public school teachers in the same state. In some states, it may already be less. The problem with paying legislators peanuts is that they will have a stronger incentive to make up the difference by accepting money and favors from lobbyists in return for voting for what the lobbyists want.

At the federal level, they are all rich anyway. The U.S. Senate is a club of millionaires; their salary is nothing relative to their wealth.

So to make it sting, we have to restrict their spending to the average for their demographic category, e.g. the Senator who is married with two children may spend no more than $54,000 (less taxes), if that's the current average for that group of Americans.

This isn't just being silly. Part of the problem is that those guys just don't get how it is for the average person. Having to live within a typical budget would be a real eye-opener, and might shift their natural allegiance away from the absurdly wealthy who they ordinarily flock with.

We have to keep in mind that national congressman have to maintain two residences - one in their home state or district, and one in the very expensive Washington D.C. area. With that in mind, a $150,000 salary doesn't seem too outrageous.

Also, consider this. While the Senate is a "millionaire's club," lowering the salary would only encourage that even more. A moderately high salary allows people who are not wealthy to run for office and still have a high standard of living. If we pay them "peanuts," we'll only get millionaires running for office.