'Public servants' paid handsomely

First, according to current logic, we have to expend great sums of taxpayer money to acquire these guys, then we have to expend, so we're told, great sums of taxpayer money to keep these guys, and now we're expending great sums of money to relieve ourselves of their services. What kind of logic is this?

I'm referring, of course, to your story "Paid to go away." And then, to add insult to injury, a friend brought a copy of an article on the front page of the Chicago Tribune concerning a public servant being paid $472,255 and whose stipend was generated by all his accumulated sick and vacation days. The man is retiring at age 55, with who knows what kind of taxpayer pension. (Do we want to know, or would it make us, in the private sector, ill?)

To add insult to injury, most of these six-figure salaries always seem to be accompanied by a free car, free gas, free health insurance, free this, free that.

Isn't it ironic that it is now expected that people who earn $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, etc. per year - and have to fund their own car, gas and health insurance on these sums - have to also absorb the cost of funding this guy's six-figure salary, and then all the perks, too?

I would like to know how any of the people in charge, who allow this to happen, justify their actions in the face of the hardships people have to endure just to remain solvent from week to week and still have to bear these added burdens.

Could somebody please explain to us why it is necessary to pay these high salaries in the first place, let alone add all the expensive perks? Wouldn't you think a six-figure salary would allow a person sufficient funds to take care of his own car and gas and pay for some of his health insurance?

Why is that too much to ask of a person being funded through the taxpayer, but it's not too much for the taxpayer who bears the burden? When is this insanity going to stop?

Rosemary Colbert

Schaumburg