I wish to rebut the “Cops deserve their pension plans” letter from Sandee Saurman in the July 30 T.O. Acorn .

Would you rather be a person living in El Rio, La Colina or South Central L.A. or a cop working there?

Who’s really at greater risk? Crossing guards for children are the first line of defense against them getting hit by a car. Does this mean they “deserve” a huge pension? As far as the overtime issue and missing dinners and kisses, well, heck, do I really have to comment on that?

Do the math here. What’s the life expectancy after retiring at, say, 55? Multiply this amount by the average life span and count in the healthcare for the retired person and their families!

At $100,000 a year, what does this total up to and how many are getting it? Changes must be made in this system and now !

As you state, Sandee, a pension is not a risk (at least for our public servants, and why not? )

It’s not a risk because taxpayers are paying it. I do know both firemen and police officers. All deserve good retirement and all are good men.

This isn’t about them, it’s about what we can afford!

I want to leave you with a quote that’s been circulating lately and it’s this:

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

––Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 Kathryn Levesque Thousand Oaks