The $100,000 question: How much pay is too much for a federal employee?

As federal employee pay becomes a hot-button political issue, employee groups and analysts say focusing solely on salary figures ignores issues like the federal classification system and the importance of the work civil servants do.

In recent days, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, requested that a number of federal agencies report to him on how many of their employees make $100,000 or more, and whether those numbers have increased in recent years. And USA Today, using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, reported on Friday that for 216 jobs for which there was both public and private sector pay data, 180 of those positions had higher average salaries in the federal government.

But observers said those numbers and calculations did not take into account many factors that determine federal pay.

Matt Biggs, legislative director of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, called Barton's $100,000 threshold "arbitrary," adding, "that number is more about grabbing press headlines and not so much based on rhyme or reason."

John Palguta, vice president for policy at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, said the $100,000 figure "sounds like a lot of money to folks who are making less than that," but noted that in a workforce of 2.1 million civilian federal employees, the number of employees with salaries at that level is small.

And Palguta emphasized it was important to consider the role that the classification system plays in determining federal salaries. He said while public discussions of pay might make it appear that federal managers simply are handing out high salaries, they do not have a say in employees' pay. Managers only determine where in the General Schedule system employees' job duties and experience place them. Salary assignments are automatic based on classification.

Longevity plays a role as well, said Darryl Perkinson, president of the Federal Managers Association. Employees who have served their entire careers in government might have higher salaries, but also could be nearing retirement, at which point they will be replaced by workers at much lower pay rates.

And Palguta said it was important to consider whether the people whose salaries were being examined were actually doing comparable work. If federal workers' duties are more complicated, then they might deserve higher salaries, he said.

"Are we looking at divorce lawyers versus lawyers negotiating international treaties with huge ramifications?" he said. "I'm a taxpayer too. I don't want to throw money away. But I also don't want to be penny-wise and pound-foolish."

Lawyers were in one of the positions in which USA Today said federal workers earned lower salaries than their private sector counterparts. Federal lawyers made an average salary of $123,660, while private sector attorneys made $3,103 more annually, earning an average of $126,763.

Chris Edwards, a CATO Institute scholar who has long argued that federal salaries are too high and has called for a salary freeze, said it was time to clarify federal pay data and statistics.

"To get to the bottom of the 'pay gap' mystery, Congress should hire an independent human resources consulting firm to dig into the official methodology and propose a more accurate way to compare federal and private worker compensation," Edwards said in a statement.

Perkinson said lawmakers should consider whether they want to hold up $100,000 as a limit for what federal employees make, given their own salaries and those paid to their staffs. According to quarterly data from LegiStorm, a congressional salary-tracking Web site, Barton's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff each are paid more than $120,000 a year.

"With a Congress that has an 18 percent approval rating, should they be paid $100,000?" Perkinson said. "I think the civil service is maybe not the best-loved area, but we're a little more respected than the Congress."