My Mayor's Car.

There was some discussion on local talk radio (The Ralph Bailey Show) yesterday about whether our mayor should get a new car or not. The question did not center around whether or not he deserved it. Most agreed that he did. The issue was whether he should accept a new car during our state's serious financial crisis.
The host argued that he should not accept it because of the severe cuts that are on the way at the state and local levels. I get his point; leadership comes from the top. If you are going to cut jobs and slash spending, you have to make symbolic gestures in your own office.
One argument made was that our mayor is quite wealthy and it would not hurt his budget at all to buy his own car. While this is probably true, it misses the point.
I have heard the host argue many times about how taxing the rich is not the way out of our problems, how it is unfair, how it ruins the incentive to be wealthy. Maybe it is a large intellectual leap, but asking the mayor to pay for his own car - a car that is part of the benefit package of his position - because we have decided he can "afford" it - seems the same as the argument that we should tax the rich because they can "afford" it. You see, if he pays for his own car to do the city's business, he is paying an extra tax to be mayor. If the hosts resolution is that the state is broke so those who can afford it should pay the bills, I am sure he supports the continuation of higher sales taxes (which are actually regressive, but that can be argued another time) and a higher annual income tax for the wealthiest few percent of Californian's. He should - but he doesn't.
The Point: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Let's look at a better example: the issues in Wisconsin and New Jersey. The issues with the destruction of collective bargaining rights can be a bit overwhelming. For the purpose of my argument we will focus on contract enforcement (feel free to bring up other topics in the comments - as though anyone is reading this).
So often we hear that government needs to be run like business. Old tried and true mantras like, "if I ran my business like the government, I would be broke!" I absolutely agree. The problem is people who usually agree with those sentiments want to give the government the right to break contracts with their employees without any sort of legal recourse. That is not how business is run. Rather, it is taking the rules that business is required to play by and throwing them out in the case of the government.
The worst part, to my mind, is the vitriol aimed at the public employees. These are workers, like the rest of us. If my boss offered me a raise, I would take it. If my boss offered me better health coverage, I would take it. A person would be silly not to. I agree completely that the state employee retirement structure needs to be reworked. We might also need to look at the compensation and benefits structure. But, why would be blame the employees for making a good deal. We should be shouting at the politicians who made the deal and now are unwilling to stand by it. The employee unions exist to represent their members. We elect politicians to represent us. It is the politicians who did not live up to their fiduciary duty. They are to be blamed for the bad deals - not the employees who are behaving  reasonably and following incentive.