I'm a little confused by your double negative. I take it that you think retired government employees should not be able to have lucrative second careers, along with cushy taxpayer-funded retirement pay. I never thought about that. It seems especially applicable when they got their skills at taxpayer expense. My son in law is a retiring Navy pilot at age 40. Now he will have a second career as a commercial pilot while collecting a nice government retirement. I see your point.
Fixed the double negative, TY for pointing it out. I usually type these things up in the heat of the moment so sometimes the sentence changes in the middle as I type it and I don't fix it.
I missed my calling in life; editing. I frequently find typos or homonym errors in published writing. They just leap off the page at me. I knew your brain would have usually caught it! You are a really good writer.
I'm a little confused by your double negative. I take it that you think retired government employees should not be able to have lucrative second careers, along with cushy taxpayer-funded retirement pay. I never thought about that. It seems especially applicable when they got their skills at taxpayer expense. My son in law is a retiring Navy pilot at age 40. Now he will have a second career as a commercial pilot while collecting a nice government retirement. I see your point.
Fixed the double negative, TY for pointing it out. I usually type these things up in the heat of the moment so sometimes the sentence changes in the middle as I type it and I don't fix it.
I missed my calling in life; editing. I frequently find typos or homonym errors in published writing. They just leap off the page at me. I knew your brain would have usually caught it! You are a really good writer.
:)