Are they? My impression is that politicians could make a lot more in industry. And often do when they leave politics.
As a data point, looking locally, California state senators get paid about $95k and reps about $90k. Which seems to be not much more than the median salary for an "Attorney I" in the state: http://www1.salary.com/CA/Attorney-I-salary.html
At least in Holland their income is really low in comparison to higher-ups in big corporations doing similar kinds of work, and much of their 'cushy' lives depend on future positions in said corporations.
These positions are often not acquired by helping 'everybody', but rather by means that often seem merely varying degrees of corruption.
> There must be something else of monetary value they receive because that's a full time job.
No, its not a full-time job. New Hampshire is among the (many) states without a full-time legislature, though their pay is pretty low even by the standard of part-time legislatures. [1]
> Assuming no corruption, politicians have jobs that help everybody. They are paid incredibly well.
Not really. Sure, they get paid a lot more than the median income, but compared to, say, top executives in private firms? Not even close. The President of the United States gets paid far less than the average Fortune 500 CEO.
> Politicians are in nearly direct control of their own pay. Or at least much closer to the source of decisions when it comes to deciding salaries.
That's only true of some politicians (e.g., politicians with a legislative role -- including in many cases chief executives -- where the pay of elected politicians isn't left, as it is in some states, to a separate compensation committee of non-politicians.)
One of the cool features of my home state is the Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials, a 17-member commission with ten of the members being selected randomly from the voter rolls, like jury duty.
