But what about public safety workers who develop heart disease, lung disease, or hepatitis C?

In theory, these professions can elevate the risks of such disabilities -- though many others can, as well. Mining, shipbuilding, and deep-sea fishing, for example, are statistically more hazardous.

Besides, it can be hard to nail down the proximate causes of such chronic conditions.

Union representatives can ask in good faith: Should a fireman exposed to toxic fumes while fighting a fire be refused compensation for his lung injuries because he once smoked cigarettes? Should the overweight police sergeant get no compensation because his weight may have contributed to his bad knees? Should these injured brethren suffer financial as well as physical hardships while they fight insurance company lawyers who insist they “prove it” when it comes to the cause of their chronic conditions?

Swayed by such arguments, Nevada state lawmakers in 1987 reversed the burden of proof for Nevada firefighters and police officers in these cases, by unanimous vote of both houses. If they develop heart or lung problems at any point in their lifetimes, it’s presumed to be job related -- the officer or retiree need submit no proof or compelling evidence of job-related causes to have the condition covered.

And those officers or retirees -- now joined by Department of Motor Vehicle field agents as well as corrections, probation and parole officers -- can also opt at their own discretion to declare themselves “permanently disabled.”

(Why, the hepatitis C benefit now covers even game wardens and private investigators retained by the district attorney!)

The benefits under such claims include income up to 67 percent of an individual’s wages. And to say such benefits “last a lifetime” is understating things -- should the recipient die, these wage benefits are then paid to surviving spouses for the span of their lives!

This is where the fact that these are “public” agencies, managed in the political arena, becomes a problem.

If such a proposal for “presumptive” benefits were brought before the owners of any small privately-owned firm, the owners might be expected to ask, “Wait a minute; what could all this cost, in the long run? Could this bankrupt our kids, someday?”

But politicians have little incentive to ask such questions. Few of the Nevada lawmakers who voted for these benefits in 1987 are still around, and those who remain do not stand personally liable if these easy promises turn out to cost taxpayers, oh, let’s say ... $2.8 billion over the next 30 years.

Yes, that’s the figure arrived at by a study just concluded by the New York firm Mercer Oliver Wyman Actuarial Consulting, seeking to determine the likely liabilities of the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Reno, Sparks, and part of the Metropolitan Police Department over the next 30 years, under this “presumptive” benefits scheme.

And the report called those estimates “conservative.”

“Our intent is not to take away this benefit,” Vicki Robinson, manager of Insurance Services for the city of Las Vegas, rushed to insist last week. “But we do need to look at it realistically, determine what the liability is, and find a way to fund it.”

Yeah. Eighteen years after the guarantee was enacted. Seems like a good time to start.

We all know how they’ll try to “fund it.” Talk about “trimming parks and recreation funding” is just so much scare talk, designed to distract the victim at the moment the suction hose is inserted.

Politicians tend to think taxes can be raised forever. In fact, by the time the great civilization of Rome collapsed, the fertile farmlands around the city were no longer farmed, since it was more cost-effective to leave them fallow than farm them and pay the taxes -- and the few farmers who persisted literally ended up selling their daughters into slavery to meet the tax bills.

Tax funding is not unlimited. Tax revolts are nearer than our arrogant masters want to believe. Unless our police and fire departments want to see their entire budgets consumed by the care and feeding of their aging (and ailing) retirees, some of these “presumptive” benefits will have to be re-thought, sooner or later.

Yes, we aim to take care of our wounded. But jobs as police, firefighters, and jail guards should not come with a guarantee of lifetime pay -- not for the retiree, and certainly not for the trophy widow.