The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court receives $208,000 a year to decide cases involving terrorism, abortion rights, executive privilege, and freedom of speech and religion, then render learned opinions based on the U.S. Constitution.

Damian G. Murray, a lawyer from Ocean County, receives $280,827 a year as a municipal court judge to hear guilty pleas from public drunks and to impose fines on people who drive 55 mph in a 25 mph zone.

Mark T. Apostolou, a lawyer from Monmouth County, receives $279,003 for much the same task. And one from Sussex County, Richard I. Clark, receives $253,138 for similar duty.

It's all perfectly legal, of course. There's no prohibition on holding down multiple public jobs and pulling in salaries well into six figures. While the income is rewarding in the here and now, the afterlife is guaranteed to be equally as rewarding because, upon retirement, the pension benefits will be computed on the total earned per year from all the jobs.

This retirement package system — often called pension tacking — has suddenly become the focus of legislative scrutiny as a potential source of savings for government and the taxpayers.

The question is simple: Why should one person holding eight different public posts, such as a municipal court judge, be permitted to collect a pension based on all eight jobs rather than just one?

The practice of holding down several public jobs isn't confined to attorneys serving as municipal court judges. There's a fair sprinkling of legislators in the list who derive income — and pension rights — from local government jobs as well.

Whether it's permitted is not really the issue. Whether it should be is.

State Sen. William Gormley, R-Atlantic, has taken the lead in focusing attention on the practice and has offered a direct solution: One person, one pension.

He hasn't suggested a ban on individuals holding multiple taxpayer-funded posts. He's merely proposed that the people who do so be treated like most working men and women whose pension and retirement benefits are calculated on the job they hold.

Some individuals who hold more than one public position reacted to Gormley's suggestion as if the senator had proposed that Count Dracula would be a terrific pick to oversee the state's blood bank.

Some argued there was no significant saving to be had, and one argued with a straight face that people were jealous of him because he stood to benefit from a public pension considerably higher than that of his critics.

To the outside world, it resembles just another case of the politically connected scamming the system, pulling in above-average salaries to guarantee above-average pensions.

Those who stand to benefit from the current system are indignant that their integrity would be questioned, or that their ability to hold several jobs and give all of them the time and energy each deserves is suspect.

They seem unable to understand the disconnect between them and the average New Jerseyan. They seem unable to understand that they are perceived to be seeking a guarantee of personal enrichment by taking advantage of political influence.

When Gormley recommends that a public pension be based on one public job, even though it remains permissible to hold several positions, it makes ultimate sense to most people.

When those affected complain that it's unfair to restrict their financially enhanced pension rights, it just looks greedy. It looks like situational ethics at its absolute worst, a justification for their personal conduct while frowning on similar activities by others.

The emergence of the pension issue and the various methods employed to take advantage of public employee retirement benefits may very well result in some corrective action.

In addition to Gormley's "one person, one pension," proposal, others have recommended an increase in the salary level to qualify for a pension from the ridiculously low $1,500 a year to $15,000 a year; require an individual work at least 1,000 hours a year to become pension eligible, and establish a ceiling of $141,000 - the current salary of Cabinet members - as the amount on which a pension can be calculated.

Whether the Legislature will accept these changes is open to conjecture. The Gormley proposal, while the most direct and easily understood reform of the system, may draw the highest level of opposition because it is so direct and easy to grasp.

Those who have a stake in the existing "multiple job, multiple pension" arrangement are not about to give it up easily. It's a system, after all, from which they benefit now and from which they'll benefit in the future.

If it survives intact, maybe Chief Justice John G. Roberts will give serious consideration to giving up his place in Washington and moving to Ocean County to preside over public intoxication complaints and speeding tickets.

Hey, the salary and benefits are a lot better.