Not balancing the budget on the backs of the military
Back in September at the American Legion Convention, the President promised that he wouldn’t balance the federal budget on the backs of veterans or at the expense of national security, but I haven’t seen any cuts anywhere else in the budget except to veterans’ benefits and defense. Have you? The latest example is cutting combat pay for troops serving in hazardous areas…like in a war. Hazardous duty pay $225/month, but DoD will start paying by the days that your in a combat area – $7.50/day.
GruntSgt sent us a link to Shark Tank who reports that one soldier was notified through his MyPay account;
So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I’m constantly in a combat zone…it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense…come on, Uncle Sam.
You should go to the link above to see the conditions that have to exist before a servicemember gets his measly $225/month. Basically someone has to shoot at you or try to blow you up everyday. I wonder if DoD can see how the accounting practices for this pay is hardly worth the savings they expect to accrue from this mess.
I guess the accounting will have to be handled by squad leaders when they return from patrols. This may be making a mountain out of a molehill, but I guess it all depends on how DoD interprets “subject to” and “imminent danger of being exposed”. good news, though; if you’re killed or wounded, you’ll get your $7.50 for that day.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues
Umm I’d point out old policy was spend 1 day in “Combat zone” get full months combat/ hazardous duty pay and Tax free base pay. Pentagon flunky arrives for 3 day briefing at Camp Victory gets full combat pay and tax free base pay for Month.
Possibly, the new policy is spend 10 days of month in zone get pay for those 10 days instead of full month?
To expand on my post, Pogues in Kuwait who never even carried rifles got the same combat pay as my section which hunted IED’s along Rte Irish at night. Which never seemed fair by any means. When I DEROS to Ft. Dix for Demob we arrived on the 3rd and got a full months tax free and combat pay to the 31st IIRC.
So now there will be a new daily map of combat pay zones. Cripes! WTF are they thinking in the Pentagon.
RLTW
Actually, I’m pretty sure this article is incorrect. As I read it, the requirement for exchange of fire only applies outside a designated hostile fire area. Personnel deployed to a designated hostile fire area will continue to receive combat pay, whether or not they are shot at on a given day.
What this policy change means is that a Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine will now be paid hostile fire pay from date of arrival in to date of departure from a designated combat zone. Previous policy was that one day in a month qualified you for hostile fire pay for the entire month. For example, a person arriving in-theater on, say, 28 January would previously receive hostile fire pay for the entire month of January. Now, that individual will receive four days combat pay (for 28, 29, 30 and 31 Jan) – not the entire month’s worth.
Past abuses as well as current budgetary pressures likely were a factor here. During Vietnam, it was reputedly not uncommon for aircrews from the Philippines to fly into one of the airbases in South Vietnam on the last day of a month, have “mechanical problems” requiring an overnight stay, and leave the following day. This meant that these aircrews got combat pay for both months.
I can’t say that I’ve seen or heard of the same during this go-around, but I’m certain there’s been a bit of the same – where money is involved, some folks find a way to game the system. And frankly, I’ve never understood why Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain didn’t lose combat zone entitlements some years ago – like about 2004. Can’t recall hearing about substantial hostilities in any of those areas in a long time, if ever.
Can President Obama unilaterally make these changes without congress, the senate, or anyone else? It seems these are changes to the federal budget, which Obama has never passed, so I would think he couldn’t just dictate these changes without any interference from the rest of the government.
S.G.,
I think that, properly implemented, this may save some money and reduce manipulation of the system. While I don’t agree with it being carried out to an extreme, paying $7.50/day to those operating in theater seems fair enough, so long as every person in theater gets it. When the FOB dwellers are denied it and us Infantry guys have to account for every day we go on patrol or the time spent at a COP, it can become an accounting nightmare.
It’s nice to see an extra $225, but I’m sure that more than a few senior leaders took advantage of the system. It wouldn’t surprise me if deployment rotations weren’t affected at least slightly by the combat pay policy (arrive in country late in the month and depart early in the month = free money), and every time the CoS, SMA, or another senior leader flies over there it is completely jacked up that they should get $225 along with all their other perks and TDY.
Anyway, it all comes down to what defines a “hostile area”. If Afghanistan as a whole is hostile then good. If a person has to be in a Restrepo-type situation daily, then not so good.
This isn’t horrific. It says more about .mil as an institution when 5th Fleet has to ban non-operational flights from landing in Bahrain to avoid the flood of pilots who flew in on the 30th and out on the first to not only score the “combat pay” but two months with no federal income tax.
This info is wrong. The new policy is that you get prorated hostile fire pay, so per day rather than per month. If you are in country 15 days, you get 15 days of hostile fire pay, rather than 30.
The only way hostile events comes in is if you are only in a hostile fire zone for a few days but you are shot at, or mortared, ect., then you get a full month of hostile fire pay no matter how many days you are actually in country.
When you realize that we are still paying hostile fire pay for Kosovo, where there hasn’t been hostile fire for the last decade, I think most people will see this as a long overdue change that will save a few bucks and keep senior officers from getting full month bennies for a couple days in a combat zone.
sorry but, I think this is a load of horse shit.
If you ask me no soldier should pay taxes while serving. Why? well they’re .45% of the population, they don’t make much, and they’re paying their own salary. Actually they could use the money far more than the civilian counterparts. You can modify for NG/Reserve forces. But then that would be too “radical”
But yet we’re still shelling out $2 Billion a whack for ships we don’t want or need, but our air superiority is going down the shitter because we’re not building F-22’s and severely limiting the number of F-35’s.
Got it.
@#10, but Sparky, there’s nothing to worry about. Just ask our very own Joey. China isn’t expansionist, Iran is no problem and the Russians just want to get along.
Who needs F-22’s or F-35’s, when there’s no threat?
And, no one should get combat pay, then there’d be no combat.
I’m glad to see this sort of policy enacted [though I would sign on to Doc tax plan as well]. For too long people have weaseled their way into theater just to collect the pay, and far, far too many have drawn HFP for sitting in Camp Buehring or some other scary, scary place.
Doc Bailey @#9
That always bothered me too. I could never understand the line of thinking behind taxing a soldier. My taxes pay for my salary which is in turn taxed to pay my salary. Huh? At the same time they give tax deductions to individuals that make more in a month than I will in my lifetime. Why not limit those deductions one less percentage point and make it so the military does not pay taxes at all?
UtahVet–don’t forget it was our good old pal Billy Jeff who decided to take what seniors got from Social Security (read: taxes) and tax that as well.
And it’s the Dems who want to jack the “death tax” back up to 55 percent. Yeah, that’ll stimulate the economy.
“…I haven’t seen any cuts anywhere else in the budget except to veterans’ benefits and defense. Have you?” No I haven’t and that really is the problem. We are losing combat power on air, land, and sea. We really don’t have enough of as is to spare, their cutting sheer muscle now. We are going to lose this capability for what? Disbanding DoD couldn’t get us out of this debt, simply because it is not the catalyst for it. It’s all ’bout dem der entitlements that Obama refuses to do anything about.
Quantifying possible combat pay by day instead of month is the epitome of petty accountant bullshit. As mentioned above that is just one more bit of minutia to burden someone below to keep track of.