Groundhog Day

It's starting all over again.

It's been just two and a half months since President Bush signed the 2008 omnibus spending package that gave civilian federal employees an average 3.5 percent raise. Then last month, Bush released his fiscal 2009 budget, calling for a 2.9 percent pay raise for civilian employees and a 3.4 percent raise for the military. Ever since, federal employee groups and lawmakers have beaten the drum steadily for pay parity between civilians and military members.

The drumbeat reached a crescendo last Thursday when the House passed a budget resolution requiring pay parity (the bill did not specify what the pay level would be). The day before, the American Federation of Government Employees said that the average raise should be 4.4 percent, following the National Treasury Employees Union's earlier demand for a 3.9 percent boost.

Chances are that neither union will get what it wants, and President Bush could veto a budget bill calling for parity. In all likelihood, the budget process won't be resolved by the end of this fiscal year, and the final language about pay will end up in a hastily crafted omnibus bill all over again.

In the meantime, the debate over pay parity will continue. It's one worth having, as it reflects the value that organizations place on the work performed by civilian public servants and military members.

The bottom line is that pay is an undeniable and blunt expression of value.

"Federal civilian employees work side-by-side with members of the armed services to protect our nation and keep our government operating as one of the best in the world," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in early March when the House Budget Committee introduced the language requiring pay parity. "Pay parity requires that compensation adjustments reflect the equally valuable contributions all federal employees make in service to this nation."

The point isn't to suggest that members of the military don't deserve good pay and benefits, and strong support from the government. Of course they do. And in a time when members of armed forces -- and their families -- are subject to repeated and frequent deployments, it makes sense that the federal government should find creative ways to support them and ease their burdens.

But pay increases aren't always the best way to show that support. Different jobs come with varying salaries. A scientist working in a lab at the National Institutes of Health, an Internal Revenue Service employee processing tax returns and an Army sergeant stationed in Iraq face different kinds of risk, and their jobs require different skills and training.

However, each job is interrelated, so setting the same pay increases across civilian and military ranks recognizes that each employee makes a contribution to another's success, while their different base salaries preserve the distinction between skills and training levels. If the IRS employee doesn't do her job, there isn't funding for the scientist to do research which might find a vaccine to protect that soldier from an infectious disease. But the claims processor, scientist and sergeant still will receive different raises.

At least one new administration proposal seeks to move beyond the question of pay. President Bush's initiative to create hiring preferences for military spouses targets the actual problem: They may need not just additional income but also support from colleagues while a husband or wife is deployed overseas.

There's plenty of time to tackle pay parity and create new benefits that increase the quality of life for both civilian employees and their military counterparts. It's only March and budget season lasts all year.