Hill opposes Bush effort to curb pay hike

The Hill ^ | 4/3/02 | Alexander Bolton

[Jean S]

House and Senate lawmakers have begun to marshal support for legislation that would amount to a backdoor pay raise for themselves and their staffs, in excess of the level endorsed by President Bush.

Bush is seeking to curb the salaries of civilian government employees to pay for the growing costs of the war on terrorism.

In the past, the issue of raising congressional pay has been a hot political topic that members of each party have exploited to paint their ideological foes as greedy and self-serving.

Recently, pay raises have lost political potency as party leaders have sought to deflect attention from the increases, often allowing them to pass automatically.
However, a new proposal by the White House that would limit pay increases for civil service employees at 2.6 percent threatens to put a dent in the raises lawmakers can expect to receive next year and may set a precedent for future years.

The meager raise would also affect Hill staffers, since lawmakers often base the cost-of-living increases they give their staffs on the increases received by federal civilian employees.

The annual salary increases for lawmakers are traditionally 1 percent less than what civilian federal employees receive. For this year, members of Congress received a 3.4 percent increase, bumping their annual salaries to $150,000.

In the House, the average salary for a chief of staff is $97,000, according to a 2000 study by the Congressional Management Foundation. Senate chiefs of staff earn an average of $116,000, according to the foundation. Chief of staff is the highest-paid position in offices of members of congress.

Members of Congress, including lawmakers on the House and Senate Budget panels, are pushing to increase civilian pay, a move that would also increase the size of the automatic raise they will get next year.

Shortly before the recess, the Budget committees in both chambers passed resolutions calling for Congress to provide pay parity between federal civilian and military employees. The measure would raise civil service pay by 4.1 percent, the same increase Bush proposed for the military.

In addition, Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Subcommittee of the House Appropriations panel, last month circulated a Dear Colleague letter with Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) to recruit support for pay parity between military and civilian employees. Hoyer and Davis represent a large number of federal employees in their districts.

Lawmakers were able to receive an automatic 3.4 percent increase largely because civil service employees saw a hefty 4.6 percent raise.

However, for last year, general service employees in the executive branch received only a 3.7 percent adjustment. As a result, members of Congress only got a 2.7 percent raise for that same year.

The cap on general service employees effectively serves as a cap on congressional pay raises, according to one administration official who specializes in pay issues.

Pay parity between civilian and military personnel in the executive branch will impact the size of the pay increases that many congressional staffers will receive for next year, as well.

“Traditionally we’ve given the same [Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA)] for the legislative branch that the executive branch has gotten,” said Roger France, chief of staff to Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

France and other aides have pointed out that while appropriators can add extra money to congressional budgets for staff COLAs, it is ultimately up to individual lawmakers whether or not to pass those funds along to their aides.
House appropriators defend the right of congressional staffers to get the same salary increases as troops deployed around the world.

“Congressional staff who are crafting legislation, whether it is a defense supplemental or a crime bill, are just as important as someone who is serving on the front line,” said John Scofield, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee.

Scofield, who expects the pay parity measure to pass, noted that the first American to die in combat in Afghanistan was a civilian employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Rep. Jim Moran (Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee Legislative Subcommittee, said pay parity is needed to keep government employees from fleeing to the private sector.

“It’s the most reasonable thing to do,” he said. “The gap between federal civilian employees and private-sector workers is over 30 percent.”

On the other hand, the disparity between military personnel and private-sector workers is close, according to Moran who also argued for more pay for Hill staffers.

“Congressional staff pay is pegged [to parity],” he said. “I would hope that most members use the 4.1 percent guideline. … I think a lot of people on the Hill are underpaid.”

Officials at the administration’s Office of Management and Budget say civil service employees have received enough of a pay increase in recent years and also enjoy other benefits.

“Civilian employees between 2001 and 2003 will receive a total of a 7.3 percent pay increase and we think that increase strikes a balance between the employees’ needs and the management’s objective of recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce,” said Amy Call, spokeswoman for OMB Director Mitch Daniels.

The 7.3 percent increase is the combination of the 4.6 percent raise that employees received for 2002 and the 2.6 percent bump Bush proposed for next year.

[3catsanadog]

Seems like I heard a few months ago that in the wee hours of one morning, our Congress voted themselves a raise that averaged $50,000.00 a year.

[skr]

I wish I could vote myself a pay raise. Somehow the checks and balances of our system seems to have missed this one point. Perhaps the Judicial branch should decide on Congressional raises with vigorous debate (in the daylight hours) between a Congressman and a taxpayer.

[Jean S]

AP 12/25/01
Congress gets third pay raise in 4 years

[goodnesswins]

LOTs of people are getting NO pay raises this year, like my husband (and his colleagues in professional jobs at a major wood products company).......AND, when they did, they were closer to the rate of inflation, which wasn't all that much in the past few years. Where's the cheese?

[3catsanadog]

Thanks for the information! In addition to their hefty $150,000 salaries, I understand they also get medical/dental health care (that continues on even if they are not re-elected, do not have to pay into Social Security/Medicare but can contribute to better managed 401K programs, and get their hair done for free. Free membership in health clubs.

I'm sure I've missed many other perks to the job.

Hmmm, I think I'm going to go into politics (to fairly represent my constituency, of course).

[browardchad]

Shortly before the recess, the Budget committees in both chambers passed resolutions calling for Congress to provide pay parity between federal civilian and military employees. The measure would raise civil service pay by 4.1 percent, the same increase Bush proposed for the military.

I think I'm going to vomit -- we send our kids to Afghanistan to fight against sub-human murderers, but the fat cats in federal jobs, whose biggest risk is a paper cut, deserve the same pay raise?

[upchuck]

For this year, members of Congress received a 3.4 percent increase, bumping their annual salaries to $150,000.

There's a couple of them that probably deserve 150K. The rest of them deserve considerably less.

Rep. Jim Moran (Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee Legislative Subcommittee, said pay parity is needed to keep government employees from fleeing to the private sector.

Well Jimmy, I doubt you'll have to worry about gvt employees 'fleeing' to the private sector. Because most of 'em already tried the private sector and couldn't hack it. Why do you think they work for the gvt??

[Lee_Atwater]

Surely they are not analysing the total compensation of a civil service employee. Federal workforce compensation, in terms of paid leave, health benefits, and pension, seem to be above that of the private sector.

Also, I consider the 30% disparity (this figure seems high IMO) between the private and public sector to be the risk premium. Working in government carries little risk, the private sector is more subject to market force.

As far as Congressional staffs, I find it hard to believe that there is tight supply of candidates for these positions. Why is there a need to adjust salaries out of the ordinary? But, hey, it is government!

[CyberAnt]

And ... these are the same idiots who want to STOP MY TAX CUTS FROM TAKING PLACE. They really have their nerve. Didn't they just vote a pay raise recently. Anybody know??