GovernmentExecutive.com

President Bush's fiscal 2005 budget proposal includes a 1.5 percent pay increase for civilian workers and a 3.5 percent pay boost for military personnel, according to budget documents released Monday.

The proposed pay raises rebuff calls for military-civilian pay parity from several lawmakers. Last week six senators sent a letter to Bush seeking equal civilian and military pay raises in the fiscal 2005 budget proposal. Washington-area House lawmakers plan to introduce a "Sense of Congress" resolution on the issue in early February.

Leading lawmakers from both parties indicated Monday that they will push to override the White House proposal.

"Civilian federal employees, from scientists at the Centers for Disease Control to CIA agents to border patrol agents, are a dedicated group of Americans who spend every day at work serving their country," said Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "I will fight for the principle of pay parity to provide them with a fair pay adjustment in 2005."

A similar situation arose during last year's budget planning, when Bush's fiscal 2004 proposal included a 4.1 percent raise for military personnel but a only a 2 percent increase for civilians. Congress overruled Bush and granted a 4.1 percent pay boosts to military and civilian federal workers in the fiscal 2004 omnibus measure.

In his radio address Saturday, Bush said that in this budget, "Americans will see my priorities clearly at work." Bush said military pay raises were connected to ongoing U.S. military commitments abroad. He did not, however, mention pay boosts for civil servants or the issue of pay parity.

"Since I took office, we have increased pay for our men and women in uniform by 21 percent," Bush said. "Next year, I propose raising their pay by another 3.5 percent. Our troops put their lives on the line to defend America, and we owe them our best in return."

Federal labor unions decried the proposed pay raise.

"The message that federal employees get from this president...is that they are not as important, that they are not valued and that their work is somehow less important than that of their uniformed counterparts," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. "That is where the real damage is done."

"We've come to expect very little from this president when it comes to compensation for federal employees," said Jacque Simon, public policy director at the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 600,000 federal employees.

Confronted with the 2 percent disparity between military and civil servant pay raises, budget officials touted the Human Capital Performance Fund, which was allotted $300 million in the fiscal 2005 budget proposal. Federal managers would be able to use money from that fund to raise the salaries of their most outstanding employees. When it proposed creating the fund in the fiscal 2004 budget, the White House asked for $500 million. The fund was created, but Congress allotted it only $2.5 million.

"The typical feature in most businesses is you pay people more who are performing well. We should not have a civil service system where everybody just gets a big or even moderately sized automatic increase," said Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Any pay boost beyond the anticipated rate of inflation, he said, should be awarded to federal employees "who are working real hard, performing terrifically."

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, believes that the Human Capital Performance Fund has an improved chance of receiving substantial funding from Congress this year, his spokesman said.

"We certainly think there is a general awareness in Congress of the need to institute a culture of achievement throughout the federal workforce," said Davis' spokesman, David Marin.

Davis will also push for pay parity in fiscal 2005, according to Marin.

COMMENTS

• I see everyday people crying about raises, if that is the case there are plenty of jobs out there you can go get. No one is forced to stay at a job where they are unhappy. Instead of fighting for this, we should be fighting for our people that are out there giving their lives for this country and so today you can have this free speech to argue about a dumb raise. It must be nice to be sitting at a desk and knowing that you are going home to see your family while we have people out that do not even get the luxury to see their loved ones when they feel like it. Please let's stop crying about a stupid fact and start giving thanks that we have brave people out there doing job and not once do you hear them complain about a stupid raise and why because they are proud of what they represent. PO1 Garcia USN Stationed in Kuwaitt GovExec.com reader Posted May 7, 2005 4:25 PM
• Joshua Bolten's statement is kind of backwards. Doesn't his office consider the civilians employed by the federal government to be 'Federal Employees?' I have read the story, and all of the posts up until now, and I can't believe that as Americans, employed by the same government, doing the same job, we should (as civilian-federal employees) be treated as separate and un-equal. I am married to an active duty member of the US military, and I am prior active duty, now employed abroad in a GS position. I work with the military every day. I come to work on time, take my allotted lunch break, and leave when I am supposed to. I do the same work, am forced to endure the same restraints as our men and women in uniform, and without a doubt, deserve the same consideration when it comes to annual increases in salary. As far as extra duty pay, hazardous duty pay, family separation pay; These things are deserved by those who have to perform these tasks that they were designed to compensate for, whether active duty serving in Iraq, or a federally employed civilian also assigned in the same or similar area. For those of you, and you know who you are, who feel that we civilian employees are lazy, un/counter-productive in comparison to our AD military counterparts, you are obviously misinformed. I have voted Republican for the last, well, forever. Maybe it is time to take a longer look at what the Democratic nominee has to offer....... GovExec.com reader Posted October 6, 2004 3:43 AM
• While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Bryan, I resent your statements that civil service employees are "unintelligent". We have some of the best and brightest workers in the federal workforce. Are there slackers? Of course there are, but they represent only a small fraction of the people who come to work everyday and do MORE than they are required to do. I am a current federal civil servant, and a former US Marine, so I have seen both sides of the fence, and have a right to comment. Civilians perished on Sept. 11 and ever since have dilligently and selflessly served in the war on terror, from the Border Patrol Agent, to the Customs inspector, to the Foreign Service officer thousands of miles away from home, and so on. Many feel that because we go home every night to our families that we are not worthy of a raise. Do you have any idea about the cost of living in the Washington DC Metro area. Unlike our military counterparts, most of us do not get BAQ, family allowances, moving expenses, dental and other benefits that the military has. I am not begrudging those in uniform a raise, beacuse when I was in the service, every dollar was a welcome one. However, the raises should be equal and fair. It's a terrible message to send to federal workers by giving them less than another group. It only erodes morale and the overall mission. Let's not fall victim to the conquer and divide tactics of the administration, but join forces, military and civilian and continue our quest for a free, safe and united front. As for your comment, "no one is forcing you to stay and drain the retirement system." No, no one is forcing me to stay. I am remaining on my own free will, because I want to stay and help defend and protect the freedoms of our country. GovExec.com reader Posted July 20, 2004 3:21 PM