Federal Pay Caught Up in Fiscal 2009 Budget Debates
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
It's the start of budget season on Capitol Hill.
Congressional budget committees begin writing their fiscal 2009 spending plans this week, no doubt tossing out and reshaping many of President Bush's priorities. Democrats and Republicans -- especially because it's an election year -- will be jousting over spending, taxes, health care, Social Security and other entitlements.
It's uncertain where federal employees will end up in this debate.
Take next year's federal pay raise. The president has proposed a 2.9 percent raise for federal employees and a 3.4 percent raise for the military, knowing that Congress prefers to provide equal pay raises to both groups.
In letters to budget committees, Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) reiterated that Congress traditionally supports parity in pay adjustments between civilian and military personnel.
Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called it "unfortunate that the president has not embraced Congress's longstanding policy of pay parity for military and civilian employees." Davis, the committee's ranking member, said he was "highly discouraged the president has chosen to abandon the principle of pay parity."
Neither Waxman nor Davis made a specific pay recommendation to the House Budget Committee. Collins, the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, commended Bush's proposed raise for the military, adding that it is "my strong view that federal civilian employees should be equally recognized for their efforts."
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, did not mention the 2009 government-wide pay issue in his letter to the Senate Budget Committee.
Lieberman, though, said the 43,000 passenger and baggage screeners at the Transportation Security Administration, who are in a performance-based pay system, should not lose out on the government-wide pay raise approved by Congress each year.
"Other DHS" -- Department of Homeland Security -- "employees in security, protective and law enforcement-related organizations at the department receive the annual government-wide pay increase, and there is no reason to give TSA screeners less," Lieberman wrote.
Lieberman said he opposes a White House budget proposal to repeal legislation, signed by Bush last year, that provides a law enforcement retirement benefit to Customs and Border Protection officers. Even though CBP officers carry weapons and make arrests, it was not until last year that Congress acted to provide them with more generous retirement benefits.
Noting that Bush proposes increasing the size of the Border Patrol by 2,200 officers, Lieberman said Customs and Border Protection also is understaffed at border crossings and other ports of entry. Bush would enlarge CBP by 212 officers, but Lieberman called for hiring more.



