Wraith;

It may well have been abused by the 'O' zone and as a grunt, I had a problem with people well to the rear rating the same things as grunts in the PLF. But those kinds of things should have been looked at as stand alone issues, not writing a carte blanche policy that hurts the trigger puller. In addition; once you come under fire, you are then (more or less retroactively) under the "original" policy which had been in affect for decades.

The bigger issue is that this speaks to a perception inside DC that "things are all right" when they aren't. If that is not true then why didn't they look at this policy in 2001 or 02 etc - or for that matter during the first Gulf War? Why? because it is politically expedient to do so now and to convince a war weary nation that "nothing has changed" or "the policy will be transparent to the troops" when what they have done is use slight of hand to save some money by taking from those who are in harm's way 24 hours/every day they are in country.

Let's try this here under open comment; the DFAS site says that the change is in effect from a lump sum payment from $225.00/month to a per diem rate of $7.50/day. Does anyone want to tell me that is an unfairly high rate of pay for service in a combat zone? Because this bill says precisely that. (D) Webb, justified it as being of little consequence to the Warrior!! If it is of little consequence, then why make the change? Answer: to take money out of Defense but at the expense of those in harm's way!

Yes; the item was included in a bill while the Republicans were in control, but it had bipartisan support and it could have been stopped by the President who had absolutely no incentive to do so because it met his personal vision and needs. Too bad it sends a message about his sense of their value to this country.

READ THE DFAS SITE: http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlemen...

Anyone still think this is nothing?

OK; a whole reply just got lost. Let's try this again. This URL is to the DFAS site which explains this in detail: http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlemen... and what you find is that the pay has been redefined from a lump sum to pro-rated/per diem. In addition, the language in here clearly states that onced fired upon, the method goes to full payment.

If this is an irrelevant issue, then why did they write in this change? Answer; to save money. And BTW; (D) Webb defended this change as being inconsequential to the Warrior. Let's kep in mind this is a paltry $225.00/30 days and then by 24 hrs and a judgement made by men who make 100K and a President who signed it who makes 400K.

The decision was Bi-partisan and signed, in an election cycle, by a President who has made it clear he wants to take a huge bite out of the Defense budget. But in this case, he is taking it out of the pockets of Warriors who he has shown little respect for.

Again; from within Congress, this was not a "Republican" initiated change, it was a Congressional approved change - from both sides of the aisle and I agree they ought to be held accountable. But if you think Obama somehow is indemnified or didn't know what he was doing by signing it or wasn't pleased by being able to quietly take money out of the Defense coffers - even if it came out of Warriors pockets, we will have to agree to disagree.

This has been sold as a measure to prevent certain higher ranking Officers and senior Staff from abusing the pay with "fly-overs" at the end/beginning of the month to pick up a double "ration". While that may be happening, it is something that should have been handled without slamming Warriors. And it is another step in dumbing down our definition of action their away from the language of war and to the language of "settled". The problem is it will not be "settled" until every last American uniform is out of that hole. In the meantime, everyone is in a hazardous duty zone until. What the final change will do is redefine everything from CAR, Purple Heart transmittals to the handling of SGLI and most egregiously, increased legal action against our forces.

The fact is, it is pro-rated and it appears Webb(D), whether with "good intentions" or not, justified the action. In addition, the link above makes it clear that when you are receive fire, the whole amount kicks in.

The point of this piece is relevant to Obama because he could have and should have shot it down - regardless of it's origination but chose not to. This was one very convenient way for him to pare back some spending from Defense which had the effect of taking it out of operators pockets. Is it a huge change in tha grand scheme of things? No. But when coupled with all of the other ludicrous and insulting changes this administration has made or approved of over he past three years, it is meaningful and bolsters the narrative.

US 1st;

Look I am not arguing anything except a change to the policy suspiciously occuring during an election cycle. And the 'fired upon' issue is a change in the policy from a lump payment/month in a combat zone to a pro-rated payment until such time as you are fired upon which then causes the whole amount to kick in. Here is the the URL for DFAS which explains the whole thing: http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlemen...

US 1st (C0n't 2)

Does your love for the current CIC know no bounds? Is there ever a line you are not prepared to cross? Can you not understand we are talking about a sum of money that is barely equal to a weeks worth of food for a family of four – and this being challenged by men and women who are paid more than 100K and a President who is paid 400K annually? And if, as you suggest, the Republicans are personally responsible for this (And it was actually Webb, a Democrat who sponsored it), why are you not expending your energy on them and the President instead of me, here? If you have any genuine concern for the truth and for these men and women who are in harm’s way, why are you not holding them accountable?

US 1st (Con't)

The information I have received from within the service and from sources like military.com have confirmed this. What I wrote is technically correct in that the pay has been re-structured from a $225.00/month payout for combat pay to a pro-rated, per diem rate. If you don not think that is the first step in redefining the battle space, then so-be-it. You can believe whatever you want; it’s a free country but know that this does amount to a change in the way the pay is handed out and a change in fundamental definition of the battle space. The next logical step is to define the battle space as a non-combat zone or a safe place.

This move does/will redefine many things including when or if a person is eligible for the CAR, Purple Heart and non-taxable SGLI payouts to families.(Con't)

US !st;

I make it my business not to make a habit of answering within a comment stream but in your case, I am going to make an exception. You seem to be very concerned about the ‘good name’ of your apparent choice for Commander in Chief while also appearing to have less concern for those he has thrust into this war. And yes; he has thrust them into the war. Just because he didn’t start it doesn’t mean he isn’t responsible for those he has committed to it during his tenure.

Let’s also recall he was all too ready to redefine the current hostilities as an “overseas, contingency operation” and expunged words like terrorist, victory and win from their common place in the vernacular. This President has made it clear that his concern is for his vision and his friends and both far ahead of the health and well-being of our troops. If you do not see that, it is because you are so committed to defending his honor you are no longer capable of understanding that; so much the worse for you.(con't)