Fairness is a basic concept. Most people learn it on playgrounds and in sandboxes before they are old enough to read.

And that makes a proposal by state Rep. Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara, all the easier to understand. Or does it?

Last year, lawmakers passed a bill, sponsored by Clark, which greatly reduced the health-care benefits state workers can expect after retirement. Now, Clark says he wants to sponsor a follow-up bill that would take away all health-care benefits for retired lawmakers and governors, as well.

Clark told this newspaper the issue is one of ethics. Simply put, it isn't right for one set of public servants, lawmakers, to take something away from another set of public servants, state workers, without doing the same to themselves. That makes perfect sense. It even sounds fair, until the issue is framed a little differently.

Lawmakers and full-time state workers are not completely equal. In this state, lawmakers are part-time. Virtually all of them rely on careers or other full-time employment for the majority of their income and benefits. Many of those jobs also come with benefits. For state workers, their state jobs are their careers, providing in many cases their sole source of benefits. If anything, then, state workers are more deserving of a generous retirement benefit than are elected officials.

But that isn't a satisfactory conclusion, either. For all the criticism they typically receive, lawmakers often serve at great personal sacrifice. With the exception of some who seem to always push bills that further the interests of their outside employers, their careers generally suffer while they spend time at the Capitol, and they receive scant wages for all their trouble. Even governors typically have to take a large pay cut when they leave behind their former jobs.

Both sets of servants, therefore, are deserving of thanks and reward. But rewards do not come without cost, and this is a benefit that, at least when it comes to state employees, could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. And that's where the ultimate question of fairness comes in.

A lot of private-sector workers, the people whose taxes pay for public servants, do not get such generous benefits. They have to pay their own premiums after retirement, if they want to continue their insurance plans. Many of them rely on government programs, such as Medicare, to cover medical expenses. Why should public servants, elected or not, get a better deal?

Some lawmakers are complaining that they will have to leave office if Clark's newest bill passes, taking advantage of a grace period. That's fitting, considering some valued and experienced state workers have had to do the same because of the earlier bill lawmakers passed.

No one should decide to serve the public only because of the great financial benefits. They need to come with loftier purposes in mind. That doesn't mean taking a vow of poverty. It does, however, mean accepting benefits that are more in line with what average members of the public can expect.

Lawmakers should survey what average private-sector workers can expect, then apply that to themselves and state workers. That would be fair.