How Much (and many) Can We Afford to Lose?
Ever wonder where the money comes and goes as it relates to social programs like Child Protective Services?
Ever wonder who's responsible for the creation of the individual social programs each government offers it's people, and how these programs reflect the care and concern a Public Servant has for the people he/she serves?
Our elected officials should be able to tell us who is getting what, and when, but that's not nearly as simple as it seems, is it? In fact, I'm wondering if the phrase "pass the buck" has more to do with finding workers willing to work within a given budget than solving the problems these people are paid to fix.
This morning I found two pages written by members of two different countries, making the same observations regarding "service" versus "work actually done" for the common-good of trusting people. In "Salaries Rise For Top Public Servants" , the writer very politely explains:
salary is one of the most important factors of choosing a career for many people. But for the present and future generations of Singapore, what we want are leaders who have passion, long term vision, discipline, responsibility, humility and perseverance for the long term interest of Singapore and its people.
People who only purse higher salaries will not be thinking deeply for the people. They will as a Chinese idiom says "ge zi wei zheng" (meaning each administrates in his own way and interest) The pitfall of such administration has been demonstrated over and over again in human history the downfall of individuals, private/public institutions, and even nations.
Therefore, I strongly believe that career happiness and those who have deep desire to serve the nation will go beyond dollars and cents. Their priority, I believe is to see in what ways they can do to help the weak and the poor out of perpetual poverty livelihood, improve general standard of living and address injustice. They will work passionately to bring Singapore forward further. They will feel extremely glad and at peace with themselves if they have achieved their objective.
The other page I found speaks for itself, as it seems to reflect a universal problem found in MANY social-orders that offer "Special Interest Groups" .
MPs under criticism for distributing largesse to their families now want to extend it further - by allocating perks to long-term boyfriends and girlfriends.
They would be able to travel first class at taxpayers' expense between Westminster and their constituencies as often as 30 times a year.
The new perk would allow MPs such as Lembit Opik to travel first class with partners.Opik, the Liberal Democrat MP for Montgomeryshire, has been dating Gabriela Irimia, one half of the Romanian pop duo the Cheeky Girls, since 2006. This weekend he said: "I'll be guided by whatever recommendations are agreed."
MPs' husbands, wives and gay civil partners are already entitled to the travel perk. Under the new proposals, MPs would be able to name the person who would qualify for the free tickets.
Girlfriends and boyfriends would be able to travel first class by aircraft, train or ferry. MPs would also be entitled to claim back mileage.
To qualify for the perk, the boyfriend or girlfriend would have to have been nominated by the MP as a beneficiary of their pension. This would rule out all but long-term partners.
The proposal, which is now under discussion, was floated last week by the Members Estimate Committee, following a recommendation by the Senior Salaries Review Body. http://tpa.typepad.com/media/2008/04/sunday-times-gi.html
Meanwhile, American officials wonder if government reform would work well for the people.... as if it should be a topic worthy of serious debate! [Read "A Congressional Priesthood", if you dare to care about who is influencing whom these days.]
So here is the $100,000 question: Is it fair to supply such "working perks" and salaries with taxpayer money when so many children are dying as a direct result of corrupt and neglectful services these leaders "morally support" and provide?