The annual White House budget proposal, due in about two weeks, begins the consideration of a federal raise for the following year—and for the first time in the Biden administration that could lead to an actual debate in Congress over competing numbers.
Some Democrats in Congress and employee organizations already are seeking an 8.7 percent increase but to this point Biden has followed the formula in federal pay law, which for 2024 would indicate 5.2 percent. Both of his prior raise recommendations have been allowed to take effect by default as Democratic leaders of both the House and Senate both years kept spending bills silent on a number.
Even the lower figure would be a tough sell this year to the new House Republican majority, though. That raises the prospect of an active debate over the raise resulting in Congress putting a specific figure into a spending bill that would be needed to fund the government.
The budget also acts as the vehicle for debate over benefits policies. While Biden’s first two proposals have suggested only minor tweaks, GOP budget leaders in the House could again turn to ideas including requiring employees to pay more toward their retirement, reducing the government share toward FEHB premiums, reducing the value of annuity benefits for future retirees, and more. That most likely would be first seen as the House Budget Committee works on a general outline for the appropriations bills that follow.
While appropriations bills cannot authorize new policies, they can limit or end existing ones by denying funding for them. One potential target already emerging is the administration’s Coronavirus vaccine mandate for federal employees—a mandate that has been on hold under a court injunction since early 2022 just as disciplinary actions were being geared up against non-compliant employees. (That case remains pending before a federal appeals court that heard arguments last September.)
A Republican bill newly introduced in the House (HR-1080) for example would give those who were fired or resigned rather than comply with the mandate the opportunity of being reinstated or being treated as if they had received a buyout. While there has been no official accounting of employees who resigned rather than comply, there were anecdotes of employees doing so.
There also is no accounting of disciplinary actions taken before the injunction was issued, although those mostly seemed to be in the nature of warnings and proposed suspensions before potential firing.
Also possibly tied to the budget will be the ongoing dispute, mostly along party lines, over appropriate levels of telework. The dispute over moving potentially tens of thousands of competitive service employees involved with certain policy roles into the excepted service most likely is to be decided in the context of another key annual spending bill, the DoD authorization.
Budget Requires More Scrutiny of Telework but Stops Short of Ordering More Onsite Work
House GOP Group Repeats Proposals to Cut Federal Employment Protections, Benefits
Employee Groups Oppose ‘Arbitrary’ Building Occupancy Target
House VA Committee Report Argues for Return of Limits on Employee Rights
Bill Offered to Restore Appeal Rights for ‘Noncritical Sensitive’ Positions
Safety of Letter Carriers Draws More Attention
Free Money… and Time: Why Your Employer Match is Worth More Than You Think
See also,
How Other Investors Use the TSP’s Mutual Fund Window Equivalent
Survivor Annuity Benefits for Children of Deceased Federal Employees and Retirees
How Not to Lose Your Federal Insurance at Retirement
Deposits to Capture Credit for Military Service
What Happens to Sick Leave at Retirement