GovernmentExecutive.com

Thanking the "public servants" involved in the fight against terrorism, President Bush called for the creation of a volunteer "Civilian Reserve Corps" to ease the burden on the military in his annual State of the Union address Tuesday.

Bush said that the corps would function "much like our military reserve" and would allow the government to hire civilians with "critical skills" to serve on missions overseas when needed.

The proposal "would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time," Bush said. He also called for an increase in the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops over the next five years.

In a statement issued before the speech, Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said, "1.8 million dedicated federal employees contribute a great deal to the strength of our country and the ability of the federal government to deliver needed services to our citizens. Yet this administration has continuously shown a disregard for their contributions. The fact is that morale is dangerously low among employees in all federal agencies including those who work at the front lines of our homeland security, those who protect our food and drugs, those who guard our nation's financial industries, and those who collect our country's revenues."

Praising what he said was a growing economy, Bush maintained that unemployment and inflation are low and that wages are rising.

"This economy is on the move -- and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise," the president said.

Bush also noted an effort underway to double the size of the Border Patrol, and pledged to add new infrastructure and technology to aid in border control efforts.

Bush listed a series of terrorist attacks prevented by government efforts and said that "for each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them."

Calling for the elimination of the federal deficient within the next five years, Bush said that with the help of Congress, he will "restrain the spending appetite of the federal government."

Bush condemned the practice of slipping earmarks into spending bills. He said that Congress should cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of the current session and that the House and Senate should vote on every item.

"These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching," Bush said. "Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk."

In the Democratic response to the speech, recently elected Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said that the new Democratic Congress has introduced a broad legislative package intended to "regain the trust of the American people."

"We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines," Webb said. "We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons."

Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., chairman of a House Government Oversight and Reform subcommittee on government management, said he was disappointed that Bush did not devote more attention to domestic issues. He noted that the president did not mention the region still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform subcommittee on federal workforce issues, said Bush's call in the speech to balance the federal budget without a tax increase raises the question of where the money will come from.

"I think certainly federal employees ought to be concerned about that. People like to think of movement, progress, advancement and moving up," Davis said. "It's like not having a budget and saying we're going to operate on continuing resolutions. I think that if the president gets his way, then I'm not sure that federal employees have much to look forward to."

COMMENTS

• First, a little restructuring of the article would yield: “the Civilian Reserve corps would function much like our military reserve to ease the burden on the military.” I think that is a valid interpretation of his verbiage. I really need clarification on this. The multiple references equating the missions between civilians and military personnel have huge implications. Am I correctly reading the deployment of gun toting civilians? At first I thought I was way off-base and I was alone in my possible interpretation, but later readings of other readers showed me to be one of many in the crowd. Even if combat isn't the goal for this corps, reduced troop presence will require issuing defensive weapons and then the animal will change its stripes. So saying, haven’t there been sufficient problems with intelligence and security contractors in this conflict? Isn’t that the basis for the recent change to the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill holding contractors and civilians alike liable for everything from capital crimes through change of command conflicts to uniform violations? And then the words “deployable assets” from the NSPS charter come to mind. Second: Rep. Davis is correct. Not even fully implemented and the NSPS (and Congress) has put any future pay increases (and therefore retirements) in jeopardy. I can hear the clarion call now, “I know that the civilian personnel workforce will understand and stand behind our need to tighten belts and budgets.” And those relying upon the largess of their bosses to fund their retirement will find the well has run dry, even if in their good graces. Politics will always require the diversion of funds for interested parties, whether you call them earmarks or not. And where do you think they will trim the budget? Tip off. GovExec.com reader Posted January 31, 2007 12:25 PM
• Besides being stupid, the concept not only ignores, but slaps in the face, all those federal civilian employees who are assigned to overseas theaters of operations. While these employees are unhappy with the disparity in income tax laws and rates of pay between them and contractors, they are there and serving both countries. Mark Gibson Posted January 29, 2007 7:51 AM
• "I think what President Bush was driving at is a Civilian Corps that would take the place of all those young soldiers hiding behind desks jobs in the U.S. and putting them on the battlefield." Oh, you mean like he did during 'Nam? The ironic thing is, if he was in the National Guard now, he'd have seen multiple deployments to Iraq. This is a brilliant concept from a renowned ChickenHawk. Too bad “Mr. Five Deferments” Cheney is too old to go to Iraq! Bring back the draft -- that way everyone shares the pain of unsound and ill-advised foreign policy decisions. GovExec.com reader Posted January 26, 2007 9:44 AM