The Dec. 5, 1906 NYT reports on Congressmen proposing to raise their salaries (once again):

A proposition is underway to increase the salaries of Congressmen to a point where they will not be tempted to eke out their incomes by porch-climbing and panhandling...If the Democrats can be induced to restrain their propensities for making the eagle scream, the measure stands an excellent chance.

At present, a Congressman gets $5,000 a year, which is what he used to get when Pennsylvania Avenue was a mud road and the best hotel cost about what a hallroom in the northwest section does now. Nobody has the least doubt that the pay ought to be raised to $7,500, but every Congressman is mortally afraid of the how about "salary grabs" which is sure to be raised...

The Speaker's solution of the difficulty was for the Committee on Rules to report a bill, separate from the Legislative bill, and have it put through, provided the Democrats would agree not to make a fuss. The Democrats can vote against the bill, if they like, for the sake of keeping up their record for economy, but they must not make speeches about the toiling masses whose sweat-bedewed bread is being wrenched from them to pamper the children of luxury in the halls of legislation. If the Democrats will not bind themselves to this course of conduct, the bill is to be dropped and nothing more done about it.

$5,000 in 1906 is approximately $112,000 in 2005 CPI adjusted dollars and $7,500 in 1906 would be worth about $168,000. Current Congressional salaries are right at $165,000 today.

In other words, we pay Congressmen the same today, in real terms, as we did 100 years ago. In return, we have a much more intrusive and paternalistic government. Correlation or causation?