Success.

Someone asked me today, "What do you do?"
This must be one of the most commonly asked questions between new acquaintances.

(No, I didn't draw it, wish I did. The artist is Bill Burg)

I am sure that sometimes the question is asked with genuine interest. But how often is it asked so that we can put each other into recognizable stereotypes.

Don't know about you, but I feel like there is more to me than my job. So next time I am in that "Nice to meet you" phase of a conversation I am going to try not to perpetuate this annoying habit we seem to have collectively developed, and talk about something else instead.
:)

Perpetual Perks

Here in NZ we are in the middle of our own mini-mini-mini parliamentary members' allowances scandal. While there are no shocks of UK proportion (there are not many moats in NZ that require cleaning I guess), there has been enough to keep the media happy for a few days.

The most interesting thing I heard from the radio show talk fest was the ongoing cost of ex-prime ministers to the Australian tax payers. (Kiwis do love to reference Australia when discussing their internal affairs). I had no idea that ex-prime ministers where eligible for such big bucks for the rest of their lives and was quite surprised to hear the figures, but apparently this information is available through Freedom of Information. The Herald Sun ran the article this week.

	John Howard's $1m splash on us JOHN Howard is costing taxpayers more in retirement than he did while running the country.

"Australia's five living former prime ministers submitted expenses tallying almost $3 million last year, the figures show."

The costs relate to running the offices of these fellows. Obviously they can't be expected to work from home like many other private individuals do, or fund the expenses of their offices themselves I suppose!

Yes I know that in the overall picture of the Australian tax-payers' budget this is a minuscule amount. But it seems to me that this is an extravagant, if not unwarranted, perk for those who have formerly been PM. Even if I could stretch my mind to think that our ex-prime ministers deserve some kind of pension, surely it should be a little more modest. Say, half the salary of the current prime minister at most. After all, I am working from the assumption that these men went into politics for the love not the money. Even if some may suspect that love to be of power rather than their country.

What do you think? Should receive ongoing financial support once they no longer work for the country? If so, what would be a reasonable sum to be available to them and should it be a life-long entitlement?

Well, given this ongoing cost, I don't think too many tax-paying Aussies will be wishing John Howard a long life - if they ever were!