This is Jerry setting a tone familiar to people who look at history. Last time he was governor, he ordered the sale of the Governer's mansion (to this day, go

This is Jerry setting a tone familiar to people who look at history. Last time he was governor, he ordered the sale of the Governer's mansion (to this day, governors must provide their own housing). He did not use the state's limo service but, rather, drove himself in a modest car. This time around ... although it his own campaign money, not state money that pays for the inauguration ... he served hot dogs at the inauguration party rather than a fancy meal. These are, in a way, theatrical gestures but they are neither empty gestures or pure pandering to the public. They aren't empty because, for example, saving $20M on the state's cell phone bill won't balance the budget, but it is a hefty chunk of change. They aren't pandering to the public because, as much as anything, the symbolism here is addressed inward on state government. If the governor is doing lots of stuff like this cutting at the top, then on down the hierarchy it becomes potentially embarrassing and career risking for high level civil servants and appointees not to follow in the same spirit. In other words, Jerry's gesture here helps to create a new political weapon: embarrassing someone that is choosing to protect rather than cut dubious perks. (Additionally, this circumstance makes it easier for lower-ranking bosses to cut discretionary perks that they control without invoking a riot among staff.) Finally, this kind of thing is critical armor against the reverse political attack. In this case, for example, the unions can't get in his face and say "How can you expect us to cut salaries or benefits when your own staff and others are wasting state money on stuff like cell phones?"