Dear Source:
The article published in the St. Thomas Source on December 5, 2006 in your Op-ed section by Democrat Mark Hodge is like reading the recent opinion crafted by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on the topic of the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Scalia writes well and, if you follow his logic, it might even sound and read well but, as usual, he completely misses and distorts the purpose, goal and need for the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution. See Hudson v. Michigan (No. 04-1360) 126 S.Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006).
Mark Hodge completely misses the boat in his attempt to distort the recent amendments to the GERS statute. Why compare senators to standard government employees? Instead, shouldn’t senators be compared to Judges and the Governor? Our government has three co-equal branches; therefore, comparisons should be made horizontally, not vertically.
If comparisons are to be made, let’s be fair. Judges retire with full salary after 20 years. Judges of the Superior Court are now paid $152,000.00 per annum and have the use of a car, along with other benefits. Supreme Court justices will make even more money. After 8 years of service, the Governor can retire with 80% of his salary. Individuals in 2nd and 3rd branches of government become vested in the GERS after serving one term in office. Comparatively, a senator must serve three, two year terms, before becoming vested. The recent amendments were meant to and did bring parity to the leaders of co-equal branches of government. Poor analogies and bad comparisons must and should be challenged because they mislead and misinform.
Senator Ronald E. Russell
V. I. Legislature
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to source@viaccess.net.
