# Obama cuts Combat Pay for Troops!  (Psst, not really)



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

I got a question from an old Marine Corps buddy on FB this morning.  He asked me to check out yet another one of those "OH MY GOD LOOK WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE TO US NOW" outrage 'stories'.  It is currently floating around from ultra-conservative blog to blog.

The basis was this:

http://www.conservativeactionalerts...bat-pay-for-u-s-troops/#.TzC5KAysPxM.facebook


> Obama Pulls Combat Pay for U.S. Troops
> 
> by admin on February 6, 2012 · 7 comments



Oh dear.  That sounds terrible!  So did President Obama pull combat pay for US troops?

Well, the story itself is a bit muddled.  It seems they quote an accurate store on www.military.com, but they interpret it incorrectly.  Bad reading skills, or intentional?



> 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.
> 
> The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.
> 
> ...



Please note; that last item says that military members WILL get combat pay when in-country in wartime conditions.  WILL, not WILL NOT.

So what is the basis for all this craziness, anyway?  Well, it's here:

http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/specialpay/hfp_idp.html



> As stated in Chapter 10 of the DoD Financial Management Regulations. Hostile Fire Pay (HFP) is paid when certified by appropriate commanders to military members subjected to:
> 
> Subjected to hostile fire or explosion of a hostile mine
> On duty in an area in close proximity to a hostile fire incident and the member is in danger of being exposed to the same dangers actually experienced by other Service members subjected to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines
> ...



So, in other words, if you spend 10 days in-country, you get 10 days of combat pay.  You used to get the entire month.  Is that a change?  Yes.  Is it unfair?  I don't think so.  It seems unfair to the taxpayer to pay for combat pay when a person is not facing combat.  But that's a legitimate point of argument.  If people disagree, that's a fair reason to argue about it; not the UNTRUE statement that "Obama pulls combat pay for troops!"

And by the way...did OBAMA do this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

And where did that come from?



> TITLE VICOMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
> Subtitle ABonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
> Sec. 611. One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special pay authori-
> ties.
> ...



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

Oh, the US Senate.  The Senate is Democrat-majority.

The House version of the bill did not have that provision.  The House is Republican-controlled.  When the two versions of the bill came together, the House gave way to the Senate version on this section.

Now, who in the US Senate inserted that Section 612 into the Senate version of the bill?  I do not know at this time.  But I do know that the entire Senate passed it, and the House agreed to it.  The President only signed it.

So no, Obama did not "pull combat pay" from troops.

How does this crap even get started?

There are plenty of REALLY GOOD reasons to dislike President Obama, IMHO.  But spreading flat-out lies?  It just makes those who dislike him look like a bunch of morons.  Stick with the facts, there are plenty of those around.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

FYI; my old Marine Corps buddy is in the National Guard now, and currently in Afghanistan on active duty; he's old like me and still a ground-pounder.  After I updated him, he was actually REALLY GLAD about it.  Know why?  He is in country month after month; he gets combat pay, and deserves it.  But high-ranking officers?  They show up for conferences, stay a day or two for a 'tour' of the combat areas, and leave; and they used to get a full month's combat pay for that.  If they showed up at the end of the month and stayed two days, they got TWO MONTHS full combat pay for that (one day from one month, one from the next month).  So that's gone and he thinks that's great.

So much for Obama 'cutting combat pay for troops'.  Sigh.


----------



## crushing (Feb 7, 2012)

Just so I understand your point.  You are saying that President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.  Before a specific provision of this law took effect troops would receive a full month of combat pay even though they may not have served the whole month under hostile fire.  After it takes effect, the amount of combat pay will be reduced to a prorated rate based on the actual number of days served under hostile fire.  However, this reduction in pay that the president signed in to law is not a cut.

I'll file this one with the idea that a huge increase in spending that is less than what someone wanted to spend is somehow a spending cut.


:angel:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

crushing said:


> Just so I understand your point.  You are saying that President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.  Before a specific provision of this law took effect troops would receive a full month of combat pay even though they may not have served the whole month under hostile fire.  After it takes effect, the amount of combat pay will be reduced to a prorated rate based on the actual number of days served under hostile fire.  However, this reduction in pay that the president signed in to law is not a cut.
> 
> I'll file this one with the idea that a huge increase in spending that is less than what someone wanted to spend is somehow a spending cut.
> 
> :angel:



A) Not just 'hostile fire' but a host of potential situations, including even being in-country in a country in which we are fighting, such as Afghanistan.  From what I can tell, everyone from REMFs to infantry continue to qualify.

B) Yes, it is a 'cut'.

C) The scream piece didn't exactly state that.  In fact, it claimed that "Obama" had taken away 'combat pay'.  File it under _'partial truth intentionally re-worded and designed to send ultra-right-wing blood pressure through the roof'_ instead. Intentional exaggeration and smearing the truth in order to rabble-rouse isn't a lot different than lying.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 7, 2012)

Bill... You rock my socks for this. I get annoyed at those who put their political agenda ahead of truth. 

And I am glad the REMF's still get their combat pay. I served in Balad for my whole tour and we were mortared daily. I got word earlier last year that the Provider Chapel Annex, where I worked most of the tour got this magnificent hole in it from being mortared, right where my and my chaplain's office was.

Go fig they would get so specific about their targets shortly after the Iraqi army moved on base. But I digress.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------

