Reverse Pay Parity

Military service members and civilian federal employees should receive the same annual pay raise, the same gesture of appreciation for their service to the country.

That's the argument lawmakers on Capitol Hill have used for years to buck the president's wishes that soldiers receive a higher raise than their civilian counterparts. Pay parity, they call it.

"Both our federal civilian and military employees fight on the front lines for our freedom, seek cures for diseases, respond to our natural disasters, protect the borders of our country, and provide needed government services to the American people," Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., trumpeted in a June statement.

Here's how it usually works: The president proposes two distinct pay raises in his budget -- a higher one for soldiers and a slightly lower one for civilians. Last year, for example, Bush proposed a 2.3 percent civilian raise and a 3.1 percent military hike.

Then a group of federal employee-friendly members of Congress, including Davis; Frank Wolf, R-Va.; Jim Moran, D-Va.; and Steny Hoyer, D-Md., call for pay parity between the two groups, and the civilian raise gets bumped up to match the military level. Last year Congress passed a 3.1 percent raise for civilians, despite Bush's original recommendation.

It's a matter of principle, Davis said in June: "I want to thank the appropriations committee for once again recognizing the important principle of pay parity."

This year, however, the parity fight may be turned on its head. President Bush in his 2007 budget had for the first time proposed an equal raise for the military and civilians. Last week, the House approved a $427.4 billion Defense spending bill, including a 2.2 percent pay raise for military service members in 2007 - the level recommended by the president for both groups.

But just the week before that, the House passed a more generous 2.7 percent pay raise for civilians as part of the fiscal 2007 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill.

So, now it could be time for military advocates to play the pay parity card. What happened?

Congress began making noise about soldiers deserving a higher raise, especially in time of war, soon after Bush's budget was published. In May, the House approved a 2.7 percent pay raise for military personnel as part of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. An authorization act only sets the stage for the actual spending bill, however.

As soon as the authorization bill came through, Davis, Hoyer and their mostly Washington-area team -- supported by the federal employee unions and other civil service groups -- began their usual pay parity campaign, successfully, as it turns out. They secured the 2.7 percent figure in the Transportation-Treasury spending bill before the House passed its Defense spending bill with a military raise less generous than the authorized amount that had prompted their calls for parity.

Now Congress is in the position of possibly granting civilian government workers a better pay raise than their fighting peers.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet determined pay raises for either group. When it does, it may once again have to deal with the principle of parity.