The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed the key finding of Heritage Foundation research on federal employee compensation: federal workers are paid substantially more than comparable private-sector workers.

Heritage Foundation economist James Sherk and his colleagues in Heritage's Center for Data Analysis provoked a firestorm on the left with their research in 2010 that showed “the average federal employee receives as much as 22 percent more in wages than an equally skilled private sector worker. Including both wages and benefits, overpaying federal workers costs taxpayers approximately $40–50 billion per year.”

The CBO report was requested by members of Congress after Heritage helped make federal pay an major issue. Sherk and Heritage’s Jason Richwine reviewed a draft of the report and helped them improve their analysis.

The CBO agrees with the core of Heritage’s analysis. Here’s their conclusion:

Overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers.

The CBO also notes that “the most important factor contributing to differences between the two sectors in the costs of benefits is the defined-benefit pension plan that is available to most federal employees. Such plans are becoming less common in the private sector.”

The CBO used a slightly different methodology from Heritage, which resulted in a somewhat different pay premium. However, they confirmed HeritageÂ’s analysis that taxpayers spend too much to employ federal workers.

Sherk testified before Congress on this issue last spring.