Jealous of PERS? Work for government

To the editor:

In response to John L. Smith's Tuesday column, "Problem facing PERS obvious; solution will be complicated beyond measure":

When I was hired by the California Highway Patrol in the late '60s after 11 years in the military, it was an accepted fact you weren't going to be paid nearly as much as your buddies who became electricians, plumbers, carpenters and other tradesmen. As a matter of fact, my salary, considering benefits, was lower than what it was in the military. In spite of the wages, the satisfaction came from being able to assist the public.

It wasn't long before I found out a large percentage of young people had an absolute hatred of the police, just as I found out they had an absolute hatred of the military when I came back from Vietnam and walked a gauntlet of protesters, who jeered and spit on us.

Still, undaunted, I worked hard to be a good public servant on the Southern California freeways and the mean streets of South Central L.A. State pay was seldom raised in those days, and we groused, but still did the job.

In 1975, I was hired by Las Vegas Metro and took a 40 percent pay cut. Again, wages were not an issue; I believed I could do more valuable public service.

During the 1980s, the public fell in love with fire and safety. Wages and benefits began to rise, and not even the media were critical. Most understood that decent wages were necessary to hire and retain qualified personnel.

Public employees have now become an easy target for the media, who seem to ignore the fact that the cost of all types of services and products has risen. How much do you pay the auto mechanic who services your vehicle? A much higher hourly rate than the cop's salary, I bet.

For all those who complain that the police make more and have a better retirement plan than they do -- apply for the job. They're always hiring.

Joe Greenwood

YELM, WASH.

Costly conflict

To the editor:

Your recent news stories related to the condition of the Nevada Public Employees Retirement System and its threat to Nevada finances, along with your editorials on the subject, are timely and important for consideration. Nevada is only weeks away from electing legislators for the 2009 session.

Consider that at least half of the incumbent legislators are either employed by government, already receiving PERS benefits or have a spouse (or someone) in their household who is employed by government or benefiting from PERS. How likely is it that there will be a majority of legislators who will vote to alter the current structure? One question a voter could ask candidates who are employed by government is whether they will abstain from voting on PERS legislation, since their income would be directly affected.

The Nevada Constitution wisely has a division-of-powers safeguard built in to prohibit individuals who are employed by the executive branch of government from sitting in the legislative branch. One purpose is to protect the taxpayers from governmental self-enrichment. Unfortunately, this check and balance has been consistently ignored or dismissed by those same individuals for years.

I recommend that Nevada voters ask their candidates about the source of their household income, and how they would vote related to bills that could make a difference.

Mark Andrews

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS CHAIRMAN OF THE INDEPENDENT AMERICAN PARTY OF NEVADA.

Who will teach, protect?

To the editor:

Regarding your articles and editorials on PERS and possible reforms to public employee pensions:

I was hired as a teacher 32 years ago at $11,500 with a master's degree. As part of my salary package, money was paid into the retirement system for me each year. I was also promised that I could retire after 30 years of service. That was one deciding factor to move here and teach in Las Vegas.

Over the 30 years, we received very little in cost of living increases. The only way I could earn a raise was through years of service and by taking continuous education credits, for which I had to pay for tuition and books myself.

I did not pay into Social Security, but I am eligible for Social Security only because of all the extra jobs I had to work. But those benefits will be reduced to almost nothing because I have a private pension, even though I earned it outside my teaching job.

What about the military people who retire after 20 years, collect that pension and then teach for 20 years and collect another pension? We are all paying taxes to pay those military pensions. If there were not so much wasted money and overspending in government, the pension system would be very functional.

A very small number of people choose to risk their lives as policemen and firemen, or dedicate their careers to teaching. Everyone has those options to pick as careers, but most people wouldn't last a week -- much less 30 years -- with 35 sixth-graders.

If you take away benefits that are given to bring people into those jobs, you'd better give serious thought to who will be left to teach and protect your grandchildren.

Donna Porter

LAS VEGAS