Ok, but I, the tax payer, am not footing that bill (yes, I'm sure we can find instances of bailouts and whatnot, but that's not the norm.) Private companies can do whatever they like in this regard, I don't really care at a practical level. I care when I'm paying the bill.

This. I am ok with the state paving roads. I am not ok in the state paving roads in gold brick. I am ok with the state buying cop cars and work trucks. I am not ok with the state subsidizing top of the line pursuit models for departments that don't have highway to patrol and spec'ing out top trim trucks for the DOT.

The same goes for employee benefits. Something is ok. Luxury is not.

If there is a reasonably comparison between employee pensions and private industry "executive compensation" should be a massive red flag. Being a civil servant should not be about the money.

Yes, but in many private companies you are paying the bill as well. Anyone that does work for the government you are paying for, whether it be food service for government employees, insurance for government employees, etc. Also, any time you buy just about anything from a corporation you are facilitating this with your money as a portion of what you are paying for is going to pay those executives.

Its just that pensions are more direct and easy to see.

I usually have a choice if I want to buy something from a private company. I rarely need to give them my money, and if I do, I may have a choice, and even if I don't have a choice, it doesn't really affect me how they use my profits. You have no option in this manner when it comes to government workers, except perhaps moving out of state.

You really think using exec compensation is a good point to compare to?

Your argument really looks like whataboutism. It's not because some people gets paid too much that it doesn't make the pensions absurd. Those facts do not have much in common.

These pensions are just as absurd as executives of failing companies getting paid golden parachutes. That's the point the OP is making.