The Senators aren't supposed to represent the people, they are supposed to represent the State's interests (though that seems to have been forgotten).
The people are represented by the Representatives, the number of which is proportional to population.
Yes, they are. That's why they are directly elected.
> they are supposed to represent the State's interests
They were supposed to, originally.
> (though that seems to have been forgotten)
No, it was reconsidered and the design changed.
It was a bad amendment and it should be repealed or modified.
No, historically, the Senators were supposed to represent the governments of the states.
You can argue that that design should be restored, but merely pointing out that it used to be that way is hardly an argument.
> The amendment screwed that up and we have seen all kinds of budget and regulatory bloat.
There's a very loose temporal association (in that the purported effect did happen after the purported cause, but not particularly closely after) with the rapid expansion of the national regulation, but not much other indication of causation; even among Constitutional amendments that were enacted in 1913, you'd have a stronger case for blaming the 16th amendment for that then the 17th (though, there's probably an even stronger argument that the 16th and 17th amendments were both effects of the same trend in nationalization that later led to the expansion of the national regulatory expansion than that either is really a strong contributor to it.)
Its an argument that an error was made by breaking the design that the founders had put in place. The House is the people, the Senate is the States. The breakage sent us down the road of a weakened 10th amendment and increased centralized power. The 16th is no joy, and I have heard the starve the beast theory, but the 17th has taken away the regulatory stops needed to keep DC in control.