Nice rational discussion on this topic, I'm surprised, but then again I'm new around here.
This has gotten the typical spin due to congress being included and as a few have stated, provides very bad optics to the public. .5% isn't much, but I'm not going to turn it down since I've been under a pay freeze for a few years now, while costs of everything needed to live on has contiinued to increase.
What doesn't help are statements like these;
"It's not how hard they [federal employees] work, it's what can the American people afford," said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA). He also added, "Currently, federal workers receive typically over $100,000, and are about 16 percent higher compensated than their private-sector counterparts."
What a jack*ss. Typically over $100K? Not even close.
Nope, sorry to tell you this but Rep. Issa may be accurate because he is probably referring to total compensation packages including all medical benefits, matching contributions for retirement, etc. In DoD civilian and military get an annual statement that shows a total compensation package that is much higher than just take home pay.
I am a GS employee (previously an active duty military officer) and when you look at the actuarial tables you'd be surprised at how much permanent civilian employees cost the government. I was shocked and I know some of the figures are debatable but the bottom line is that every government job costs a lot more than you'd think - I also now see why the government uses contractors in many cases. The economics do favor it much of the time.