Why Don't You "Spread the Wealth Around"?

Apparently, the Obama campaign remains so flush with cash that it's going to give staffers an extra month's pay, along with blackberries, laptops and other assorted goodies.

Assuming the money was raised within the boundaries of law and ethics (a mighty big assumption), in one sense, who can object? If it's theirs fair and square, then they should be able to use it for any purpose they please.

But given that Obama's victory supposedly represents a "wave" of "change" that involves "spreading the wealth around," it's the height of hypocrisy to blow all that extra cash on goodies for themselves (the political equivalent of the "ultra-rich"). Surely McCain campaign staffers (not to mention "ordinary Americans") would like laptops, blackberries and a little extra cash as much as Obama staffers would -- and what's more, they don't have the expectation of plum government jobs in the new year.

If Obama's team feels entitled to mandate that hard-working, well-to-do Americans to pay a bigger share of what they have, shouldn't its members be setting the example of the "sacrifice" they intend to demand of others? Or, for them, is it "sacrifice" for thee, but not so much for me?