Public service is public service, not an 'entitlement' - no, I do not think they should have a similar wage and benefit to the private sector; if they want that, get a job in the private sector. Since I also believe that the federal and local governments should outsource most of their departments to the most efficient commercial company, then I don't care what kind of employees the government is able to attract and retain, since they shouldn't be employed in the first place.
Probably not a popular belief since in many areas, the government is the largest employer. So what? If one believes one of the central conservative tenants: that government should be small and efficient, that there is nothing a government agency can do that a private industry can't do ten times better, then how can that be connected to salaries and benefits that equal or exceed private industry?
Private industry has the balance point of requirement of making money, whereas government employment has the requirement of being able to spend the people's money.
I’m a small-government type, so I agree with some of what you said. But, there are things I want our government doing—defense of the counntry, first and foremost. And if we want those jobs done right, employees deserve a fair, competitive wage, IMO, and that applies to a benefit package as well. To call that an “entitlement” is a bit of a stretch. And I didn’t say payments that “exceed” the private sector, I said “competitive”.