Pensions for public service just too good

There was an article in Sunday's Tribune about the cost of pensions for firefighters and police adding to the burden of our suburban debt.

In all the rhetoric and agonizing over how we're going to pay the cost of these pensions, no one ever asks the question how does giving a retired firefighter or police employee 75, 85 percent of his salary at the age of 50, 55 translate into keeping everyone in the community safer?

We constantly hear about the dangers inherent in these lines of work, but what on earth could be so dangerous after retirement that would warrant a pension that's almost as lucrative as the salary? And how on earth does giving the spouse the full benefit after the retiree dies generate security for the rest of us?

If you're a recipient of Social Security and the major breadwinner dies, the widow gets a widow's pension, which is half of what the biggest wage earner received.

Why is the widow of a firefighter or police person more worthy than all the Social Security recipients who lose a spouse?

Is this what they call the gift that keeps on giving?

Rosemary Colbert

Schaumburg