Not so sure about this. I can think of many politicians who would be very happy earning that level of money, plus a cushy pension, plus an invite to network with all the movers & shakers in society. Add on the very comfortable prospect of a lobbying gig once you have been voted out of office and I doubt most politicians of this level have become worse off economically after a stint in politics.
I also disagree with minimizing the cost of these salaries. All these small costs add up.
They really don’t, compared to the overall budget. It’s surprisingly difficult to find figures for how much is currently paid out in congressional (and presidential, though there are obviously so few of those that their contribution is negligable). Still, if we assume there are about 5000 Congressmen getting yearly pensions with the values given, it’s still less than $1 billion. In contrast, the requested discretionary spending for 2014 was $1235 billion, along with $2475 billion in mandatory spending.
The sort of complaints in the OP inevitably come up when discussing the federal debt and deficit. You can’t solve the problem just by making things more efficient, cutting waste, or capping the generous benefits described in the OP. The contribution of congressional salaries and benefits to a $3.5 trillion budget is negligable.
The only real point I’d disagree with in your post is the use of the word “solve”. Sure, efficencies may not solve the problem but they can help alleviate it. Alleviating a problem(if indeed you think inefficiency/overspending should be tackled) can be decent enough policy. Not every policy has to solve something; a policy can lead to incremental improvements.