Even taking the value of benefits into account, civil servants still don't make anywhere near twice as much as their civilian counterparts (as you claimed).
The author of this article begins to display his massive ignorance as early as about the fifth paragraph:
"Average compensation for federal civilian workers last year came to $106,579 ? which Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute notes is "exactly twice the average compensation paid in the U.S. private sector." Throw out the benefits and the difference is less, but still a whopping 62 percent more for the federal worker."
Even if the figures are correct, the comparison is at best meaningless, because it's comparing the average of *all* government employment to the average of *all* non-government employment. This is an apples-and-oranges comparison, because it's not comparing similar jobs.
The lowest wages in the private sector are found in retail stores and restaurants. Q: how many retail stores and restaurants does the Federal government operate? A: zero.
The Federal workforce also contains disproportionate numbers of scientists, engineers, and managers -- all of which pay more than average.
When you compare _similar_jobs_ between the Federal civil service and the private sector, you find that wages are almost always higher -- and not by just a little bit, either -- in the private sector. That's why the Federal government has a hard time retaining its top people: business hires them away. You just don't hear about businesses losing their top people to the Federal government because the pay is better. It just doesn't happen.