Re-evaluate pay, perks for pols

I remember in the late '50s and early '60s people said it wasn't worth running for office because it didn't pay enough and the pay was better in private industry. In order to get more qualified candidates to run, pay for elected officials was increased and we did get more qualified candidates to run.

Today, between what higher elected officials are paid and all the perks they get, all at the expense of the taxpayer, candidates are spending millions to run for office. Where else can you work for four or eight years and leave your office with the same pay and perks that you had while in that office? Where else can you retire after three or four years in a position and not only get the same pay and benefits during your retirement, but also a six figure severance package, again at taxpayer expense?

The taxpayer, who pays for all of this, has to work some 40 years and to at least age 65 and in a lot of cases to age 67 before they can even think of retirement. Once they retire, their monthly earnings goes down and then a good portion of that earnings goes for medical insurance if they want to continue to have the same type of coverage they had. A lot of retires can't even afford medical insurance and must depend on government programs that, in most cases, don't meet their medical needs. What about the day-to-day expenses they have and need to pay for? Most of the time the money isn't there and then we wonder why so many people live in poverty.

I really feel it's time to re-evaluate the way we pay our elected officials and maybe start cutting their pay and certainly the perks they get after leaving office.

Stanley F. Jurczewski Jr.

Roselle