Posted on 02/06/2012 6:03:41 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER
President Obama’s latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at, or at risk of being injured by hostile aggression. A Marine who lives in Florida(also currently serving in Afghanistan) has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at.
(Excerpt) Read more at shark-tank.net ...
So what’s obama’s polling data now with military vets ?
Have you seen any other verification of this?
According to Military.com, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 1540-7 Sec 616) as of February 1, 2012, this new measure went into effect, and soldiers who are to receive the additional $225/mo. combat pay ‘must’ be in immediate risk of harm. The measure is very specific in its criteria for receiving the additonal pay.
you think he should get hazardous duty pay for the time he spends at CENTCOM in Tampa?
Not that obama is a competent cinc, far from it, but I think the hazardous duty pay and combat pay has gotten stretched by the military into a pay supplement and an entitlement, rather than being paid for the cirtcumstances it describes. I am all with troops getting this supplement as soon as they deploy, as soon as wheels hit the well, and even when they are on leave, but not when on rotation
back in conus or noncombat zone like Germany or even Kuwait .... if that is what this is all about
So this is the House´s doing?
Go ahead barry. Keep pissing off the military. We’ll need them on our side when they come to the WH to drag your ass off.
Shark Tank has a good record of accuracy.
Gateway Pundit agrees with this article just a few postings AFTER this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2842966/posts
Green fees must have gone up.
Other discussions about this on the net if you look around.
It appears the new procedure is to limit the Imminent Danger Pay to only those days in which the person was in the defined area. In the past personnel received the pay for the entire month regardless of how many days spent in the area.
Yes, this was Congress’ doing. Per the article at Army Times:
“Under the new policy, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in the danger pay location, defense officials said Thursday.
Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of the month in a danger pay location received danger pay for the entire month.
The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if a service member spends only 7 days of the month in Afghanistan, he or she will have only $52.50 in Imminent Danger Pay added to their paycheck.
Exceptions will be made for troops who are “exposed to a hostile fire incident”, regardless of location. They will receive the full monthly amount of $225.
The change was mandated by Congress as a part of the 2012 budget, and the Pentagon announced the implementation of the new rules on Thursday.”
Interesting implementation quandry. Are they going to pull the combat pay for sailors aboard ships in the Persian Gulf? Are they really in danger of coming under fire? How about those aboard submarines? I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. There have been past abuses I have seen that likely should be addressed. For example, I remember a colonel I worked for who would always show up from The Netherlands and spend the last two days of one month and the next few days of the next in Albania/Croatia, thereby earning combat pay plus the more lucrative tax exemption. The guy had more dimes dropped on him during IG visits than I could count, but nothing was ever done about it. I wonder if they are modifying this as well?
It would be interesting to know, though I’m not sure we could ever find out, which azzholes in which specific congressional staffs pushed this. I’d like to think that it would be all derived from the Left but often there are bastards on the GOP side as well...usually the ‘in the closet types’ who simply don’t like the military.
While "combat" pay specifically might be pulled, these sailors would still receive monthly sea duty and sub pay for these assignments. Perhaps if they're on mine patrol, or other special ops, combat pay would be permitted.
Yes, I’ve seen other posts.
btw - Gateway Pundit is not infallible and has been wrong in the past
All American Citizens should get combat pay for having to live under the reign of nobama and his loser minions.
Obama is just begging for a military coup
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.