Civilian Reserves - What do you think?

I'm speaking of Clark's plan he announced today. Read: http://www.clark04.com/speeches/005/ I LOVE the idea personally. I've seen several threads about Clark (I've been searching so as not to piss off the DU gods :) ) but I haven't seen anything about what everyone thinks of the plan itself.

Perhaps we can do this without a couple of you (you know who you are) coming in here talking about everything BUT the Civilian Reserves.

I read the proposal and didn't care for it either. Sorry, this doesn't float my boat.

...it would be useful to have some kind of organized response. the day of here in nyc was, to put it mildly, chaotic (or... the worst day in many peoples' lives?). and afterwards it was difficult to find where the help you wanted to give was most needed.

it would be voluntary anyway. and not a military position...

don't know what they could use a musician for though heheheh ;-p

great line from the speech:

Under this Administration, service is for those who cannot afford to be served... and patriotism is defined as the many sacrificing for the few.

it sounds like it could be a useful way of increasing grants for non-profits as well... which would always be a good thing, considering the dismal amount that is available now. it's also a great way to relieve a lot of the pressure and responsibility for troops, which could reduce the stress of being spread so thin. then we wouldn't have to have them perform extended duties like in our current situation.

it's a similar plan to kerry's public service plan but more based on military models (without the guns and bootcamp). i like it no matter who says it.

it sounds like the president would have the discretion to call up these 5000 or more people, and command them to work on just about anything, with the taxpayers picking up the tab. whatever Clark now says is the reason for them to be called up (disaster relief, postwar reconstruction, medical emergencies), unless there are checks and balances, the bottom line is they could be used to do whatever the president dictated. they could be used for partisan purposes. they could be used to unfairly compete with private sector enterprises. they could be used to preferentially help political allies. the program itself, with its $100 million budget, could become an unaccounted-for fiefdom for patronage.

the acid test for such schemes is whether it'd still be a good idea in the hands of an 'opposition' president - someone we don't trust. it's fine to imagine the great things a president Clark could do with such a program, but then don't forget that the next president who comes along may have a different political persuasion. what terrible things would Bush do with this power? i hate to think about that.

I think I might be able to get behind something like this at a state level -- with guidelines in place for interstate cooperation in the event of major disasters.

But the way things are going these days, I most definitely would not want to give the feds the power, the money, or the control over ordinary citizens that this idea implies.

...but i agree-- of course it would have to be presented in a way that didn't allow for some psycho with ulterior motives to take advantage of those who enlisted...

:puke:

so that when all the reserves are called up and enlistment is down that we will have people we can press into service without calling it a draft. Freedom and liberty mean no enslavement to fight the warmonger's battles.

No one would be required to join this Civilian Reserve, and no one would be required to put in more than six months IF they were called up. It is not a military organization, and those who sign up will get a bit of pocket change and medical coverage.

The comments about possible misuse are well taken, and will have to be addressed if Clark does become President and if the Democrats somehow manage to recapture the House or the Senate. No one would be required to join, and provisions could be incorporated in the legislation to prevent the volunteers being used for strike-breaking, etc.

In essence he is proposing a "Peace Corps" for the United States, which would not be a bad thing to see established.

The speech itself is posted somewhere around here. I suggest anyone who hasn't read it take a look.

first off, the president does not have the sole authority to deploy the peace corps however he sees fit. second, the peace corps was intended for more or less permanent ongoing missions, whereas Clark's proposed service corps is supposedly for emergencies. so it's not really like th e peace corps.

also, i'm not sure that a domestic peace corps would be a great idea either. why not pay people real living wages to tackle society's important problems, instead of trying to use these quasi-volunteers? voluntary efforts sound noble, but they undercut the people who might want to make a career out of tackling those problems. for example, teachers' aides, or library clerks, or suicide counselors... if these jobs are worth doing, then they're worth paying real wages for someone to do them. having these tasks performed by volunteers, means that anyone who wants a real job being a teacher's aide, a library clerk, etc, will have to compete with "volunteer wages".

is that a good thing?

Nope, not at all. Fortunately, that's not what we're talking about here. If Clark doesn't make it into the White House this is all academic. Will proposals like this help him get there? He's betting it will.

If he gets into office, and if there is a change in the composition of the Congress, and this gets to a point where it is considered and discussed, then critics can make suggestions and changes and maybe even work to defeat it. Right now, though, going through the traditional "devil's advocate", "what if" arguments may be interesting and creative, but essentially its a waste of time and energy.

I happen to like the proposal. If I ever get the chance to vote on it I'll be in favor.

First, though, I'll concentrate on prying George Bush out of the White House next November.

Then we can argue.

Is that a good thing? Nope, not at all. Fortunately, that's not what we're talking about here.

it is what one supporter of the idea thought we were talking about.

If Clark doesn't make it into the White House this is all academic. Will proposals like this help him get there? He's betting it will.

it scares me that a guy with no political experience is proposing vague poorly thought-out bullsh*t ideas like this as though they're brilliancies, and expecting them to help get him elected. if it's a serious proposal, then Clark should put in the time and effort to flesh it out now, so the idea, and his candidacy, can be judged on its merits or lack thereof.

i haven't read up much on it, but i think i would support it. i support john kerry's program for service also which i know more of and it's specifics. i think i would like clark's also.

We already have the Peace Core, Americorps, National Guard, Red Cross, Volunteer Fire Dept, Search & Rescue....to name a few...why on earth would someone put themselves in a 'volunteer' position that would then be mandatory 5 years or whatever and find themselves working in a foreign country "rebuilding" it. Isn't that like getting cheap labor so you don't have to pay retirement and medical and such? How many people do you know who could just pick up and go to Iraq and work as a volunteer....really what are we coming to? It starts out saying you would help in your neighborhood and ends up with you can't get out (like the military) and can be shipped overseas. It looks like a new way to circumvent the draft.

GO DEAN

The GO shopping and be very afraid brand of Patriotism. Combats the "watch what you say patriotism"......because this is constructive and allows people to be involved....instead of watching helplessly while Giant corporations get the contracts to clean up the natural disasters, etc....

Also, It will give other options to those young guys & gals who join the army for two years because there are no alternatives....other than prison.

This is a volunteered six month gig that is not attached to the military. ALso you get health care and pay.

So I think it's good proposal...and maybe it's too bad no other candidate had thought of it yet....including those who have been running for President for over a year now.

that was what Clark was proposing. It isn't.

He proposed to have retired doctors, etc. form a response reserve. I worked in a town with three practicing docs over 70, and found their clinical skills truly disturbing. Fortunately, when there was a true public health emergency (take my word on it, I'd identify the town and thereby the docs if I specified the emergency), there were other docs who stepped up to the plate.

The Civilian Reserves works on so many levels.

And here's a thread in GD that discusses the speech where it was unveiled, with lots of viewpoints.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=532548&mesg_id=532548

(moderators, please remove my duplicate thead - I missed this one - sorry):
http://tinyurl.com/qzv1
I feel this is actual empowerig (as opposed to mere words to that effect)