« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Flags for Bureaucrats Act

Congress will soon take up the “Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011″, an act to make military service to our country no more significant than stamping a passport. Conservatives should oppose it.

Under the Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011, it will no longer just be the bereaved families of soldiers killed in action who get the flag properly folded in grateful recognition for their service to the country. No, now it will also be the post office worker who refuses to deliver your mail because you once wrote a letter to the editor in favor of post office privatization (I know people who’ve had this happen).

This well meaning legislation, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and Daniel Akaka, takes a notable act of the military and devalues it across the civil service letting a massive amount of civil service employees also qualify to get a folded flag if they have a heart attack on the job, get in a wreck in their postal jeep, etc.

The act of folding the flag and giving it to the grieving family should mean something special. And when anyone who works for the federal government can get it, not just soldiers who died in active service protecting the country, it becomes just another trapping of power from the federal government available to all those people in the ever expanding federal bureaucracy.

The American Legion has come out opposed to this legislation. John Boehner intends to put it up for a vote as H. R. 2061. You should call 202-224-3121 and tell your Congressman to oppose H.R. 2061. Here is what the Legion says:

Seemingly as the nation attempts remember those thousands killed on September 11th, the House is throwing up a token effort to remember those federal employees killed that day. Maybe, on its face, the House is merely trying to recognize the sacrifice of the nearly 3,000 federal employees who died since 1992. No matter the reasoning, The House has set a consent vote on H.R. 2061 Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011 on the calendar. As amended in the Committee of the Whole, this bill would allow the head of an executive agency to pay for the expenses incident to the presentation of the United State flag for employees of a federal agency.

The American Legion’s opposition to this is multifold:

  • This bill has not been fully vetted in committee hearings and proceedings to further clarify the intent and limitations of the bill.
  • The Committee of the Whole stated, “Presentation of a United States flag is an appropriate way to honor Federal employees’ contributions to the American public. The Committee believes these individuals are no less deserving of our respect than members of our armed forces.” The American Legion and most certainly a multitude of veterans and those currently serving would disagree with this statement.
  • It allows for payment of “expenses incident to the presentation of a flag.” Not being further clarified, would this require payment of a formal “honor guard” to present the flag, postage of the flag to the next of kin, or other costs? Those are allowable expenses under the 1993 DoD measure.
  • It loosely allows the agency head to provide the flag to the “next of kin” or an individual other than the next of kin if “no request is received from the next of kin.” Would this allow a friend or acquaintance to take advantage of this provision if the family had decided not to?
  • We remain deeply concerned that individuals who provide “volunteer services” might also be covered under this without a true understanding of the provisions this inclusion might provide.

COMMENTS

  • Aaron Gardner

    Or during the union negotiated two hour lunch period?

    This is amazingly disrespectful to all those who have received the flag. My father and grandfather being among them.

  • danielhill2008

    Or a Nobel Prize. It’s a self-esteem thing, don’t you know.

  • bk

       

  • Ausonius

    I am reminded of the Soviet Union, where engineers and scientists and doctors were deliberately paid less than manual laborers.

    Communist Party members of course received all kinds of honors and lived nicely!

    Cartoonist George Lichty used to satirize Soviet apparatchiks by showing stars with “Hero” on their cotas.

    MAObama’s America satirizes itself!

  • dt

    Erick,

    I respectfully, but vehemently, disagree with you here. Certainly, the Act, as written, would benefit from a little bit more clarification. But, as of right now, FBI agents killed in the line of duty not to mention state department and other government workers killed by terrorists while working in Afghanistan and Iraq, CIA agents working in Pakistan, Yemen, etc. do not get the flags our soldiers get. These individuals are risking their lives for our country, and, in my view, deserve the same honor as do our troops. I recognize my view may not be fashionable here as many cannot see past the hated epithet of “bureaucrat,” but I would urge people here to be respectful of the sacrifice these people are making for us.

  • oldbird77

    I had to check my calender to make sure it wasn’t April Fool’s Day.

  • anjinconsulting

    No civil servant is asked, or expected to give his or her life without question in defense of the Constitution; the very same constitution enables hate spewing, race baiting, class envy politicians and labor leaders to use taxpayer money to promulgate the kinds of provacative garbage that Captain Zero so conspicuously failed to denounce in Detroit. The same constitution that the LSM hides behind to protect “the One” from the obvious.

    No civil servant is enlisted (or commisioned) under penalty of death (for desertion in a time of war or for treason). Civil servants can resign without penalty at their request when/if their political beliefs differ or contradict the mission or the objective of the government or even the president. Civil servants can openly protest and engage in political demonstrations. Not only does the military code of conduct forbid that behavior it reprimands it under the practice of non-judical punishment.

    No civil servant, especially an AFCSME member (or whatever alphabet moniker for parasite they use these days) would voluntarily discharge his or her duties under the most deplorable conditions and in the most inhumane and cruel circumstances for the wage that an E-1 grade soldier, sailor, airman or marine makes.

    Civil servants are nothing more or less than ordinary citizens.

    Policemen and firefighters rate this honor as well, but no one rates that honor more than the military.

  • Ausonius

    The “leveling” here is an insult to all those whose lives are at risk for our country because of the War On Terror, whether CIA,FBI, etc.

    The Act “as written” is an egalitarian push to give everyone a “Certificate of Attendance.”

    It certainly does need “clarification,” a great amount!

  • dt

    But, the CIA, FBI, etc. are civilians and therefore not currently entitled to the flag that our soldiers get. The Act is an attempt to remedy that imbalance and in no way equates giving a flag with a certificate of attendance. To qualify, even as written, the “civil servant” for lack of a better term must be “killed while performing official duties or because of the individual’s status as a Federal employee.” Erick’s example of “having a heart attack on the job” wouldn’t qualify for a flag even as written.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Federal civilian employees who die of injuries in connection with their service with an armed force in a contingency operation are eligible to receive a United States flag. See 10 U.S.C. ? 1482a.

    What this law would do is expand it to volunteers, though they aren’t defined, postal workers killed in car wrecks, bureaucrats who die of heart attacks on the job, etc.

  • dt

    Indeed, it’s not even clear that the postal service would ever qualify for this Act at all. Don’t take my word for it. Look it up:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112Njkst7::

    There appears to be a typo in the definition of executive agency, which should refer to 5 USC 105 instead of 501:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000105—-000-.html

    And under 5 USC 104, the Postal Servie is specifically excluded from “indepndent establishment.” See 5 USC 104. It’s not clear that it wouldn’t be covered under Government corporation, which is where the claficiation likely might be needed.

  • dt

    What about employees not serving with the armed forces, e.g., FBI, CIA, etc.? It seems to me that this Act is designed to rectify an otherwise clear imbalance where people who are clearly deserving of a flag currently don’t get one.

  • johnconradarens

    The flag, at its core, is a battle standard.

    This is a grotesque slap in the face of all who have served… ESPECIALLY the lowly grunts that have sacrificed EVERYTHING for that Flag, volunteered to do so, and never have a hope of earning what a GS12 makes.

    Oh, man. This is awful. The things we are doing to our magnificent warriors. Where will they come from in the days ahead with this sort of thing going on?

  • Raven

    CIA and FBI and others who lose their lives in the line of duty are, indeed, deserving of recognition of their service, but in no way are comparable to military personnel.
    Civil servants in those positions can just get up and walk out any time they so desire. They don’t give up their rights or their freedoms for their jobs and they get paid a hell of a lot more.

    No, the presentation of the Flag should remain a distinctly military thing.

  • Ausonius

    which is much too vague.

    “Killed in a car wreck” would qualify the driver of a postal truck involved in a collision.

    As you said DT, “clarification” is needed via much more precise language, if the bill intends to honor FBI or CIA people killed because of an enemy’s attacks.

  • dt

    anjinconsulting’s post specifically says that firefighters and police officers (most of whom are not federal employees by the way) ARE deserving of this honor, so it’s not a distrinctly military thing. What is the difference between a police officer serving a warrant and an FBI agent doing the same thing? Why is one deserving of a flag while the other is not? Why is a CIA agent serving our country in Yemen or Pakistan who is killed by terrorists not comparable to a solider doing exactly the same thing?

    Soldiers’ sacrifices should be honored with a flag, but it seems to me that others dying for our country in similar circumstances should be similarly honored.

  • dt

    See my post above re the Postal Service. I admit that it’s not totally clear, but members of the Postal Service might not qualify in light of how Executive Agency is defined. And it’s not just “killed” its “killed” whle (a) “performing official duties” or (b) “because of the individual?s status as a Federal employee.” If the Postal Service does qualify as an Executive Agency, then it is possible that “killed while performing official duties” might qualify for a postal employee that dies in a car wreck, but I think with a slight tweak even that language could be improved to omit these types of circumstances. In short, I still think the purpose of the Bill is both nobel and correct, which is what spurred my disagreement with Erick.

  • Political_Lizard

    There are indeed civil servants that are asked, or expected to give his or her life without question in defense of the Constitution. At least a few civil servants swear to the exact same oath that the military uses to swear in. Please read Ericks comment concerning 10 U.S.C. ? 1482a as there are cases where presenting the flag to a civil servant is entirely appropriate.

    I agree with Ericks comments that working day to day CONUS is not deserving of the flag being presented. However, for those that are currently in harms way supporting contingency operations they have sworn an oath and have given their blood and lives in support of the constitution.

    Serving on contingency operations is not limited to the FBI or CIA there are many DoD civil servants supporting contingency OPS. As far as the E1, well you are right there probably are not many willing to do that for that pay. However, that being said, the civil servants that are supporting operations are generally not entry level persons either. Many bring 20-30 years of experience. The civil servants supporting contingency operations are in as much danger as many of the soldiers.

    I don’t believe every civil servant deserves the honor of having the flag presented but there are exceptions. Blanket statements lumping all civil servants in the same group does a great disservice to the civil servants that serve side by side with the military. Lets leave the presentation of the flag to those that give their life in defense of this great nation; military or civilian.

  • anjinconsulting

    ?There are indeed civil servants that are asked, or expected to give his or her life without question in defense of the Constitution.? Name one who is not a member of some law enforcement agency.

    State Department, CIA and other US agency personnel operating in hostile areas ?supporting contingency operations? are protected by either law enforcement agencies of the United States or by US military personnel. If they are not, they are contracted (for example in the case of Blackwater personnel) and are thus not considered civil servants

    The intent of the analogy using the E-1 was not to compare salaries or experience; it was to draw a comparison of the expectations for the two persons and the circumstances under which they are expected to perform their duties.

    I don?t believe ANY civil servant who is not either a fire fighter or a law enforcement officer and who was killed in the line of duty deserves a flag at their burial. There are numerous civilian awards, including medals that are provided for that purpose.

    The burial flag given to the family of those who died in combat, or who died after serving honorably in the military is a singular honor, a singuular symbol of and for the profound respect of the president and the country for those who paid, or who were expected to pay the ultimate price for their country in defense of the constitution.

  • Locked and Loaded

    That’s what constantly comes out of Congress, and this is a perfect example.
    They are not solving problems; they are creating more and more controversy. Any of them with their names on this kind of shoddy garbage should be tossed right along with it.

  • anjinconsulting

    JUST KIDDING!!

  • hwgood

    …as long as the correct flag is used. For Congresscritters of the “D” persuasion, I suggest the White Flag they prefer to fly.

  • Political_Lizard

    “?There are indeed civil servants that are asked, or expected to give his or her life without question in defense of the Constitution.? Name one who is not a member of some law enforcement agency. ”

    ______________________________________

    I can name many. I for one am a civil servant currently sitting here in OND supporting the soldiers. I am not a contractor nor am I associated with any law enforcement agency. I am a Department of the Army civilian serving side by side with the soldiers I support. I have first hand knowledge and experience in this matter both as a civil servant and a veteran. I swore the same oath to support and defend the Constition of the United States as the soldiers do, and I should know as I have been sworn in to both the military and civil service.

    Are you saying my blood is worth any less than the soldier next to me? If so I can tell you your view is not the same as the soldiers beside me.

    Bottom line to me is that your theory on it being a singular military honor went out the window when it came to be that over half of those associated with the Department of the Army are either civil servants or contractors. With many being deployed side by side with their military counterparts.

  • 2warabnvet

    and DA civilian. Do I get two flags?

  • brojohn2

    If you are a civilian, you deserve, maybe a medal, but that flag is what I and my brothers fought for, in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama. It is the flag that my brother deserves after Agent Orange kills him. I have to disagree, even when DOD personnel are serving in a rear area next to other rear area soldiers. The entire difference is that when push comes to shove, the soldier is expected to defend the civilian, not the other way around.
    Let the Weiners in Congress find some other symbol to denote Govt. Service, but not the properly folded flag of the USA, for which we all volunteered our lives and our honor.

  • Raven

    Their sacrifice is Not identical.
    At any time they can take off their uniform and say, “Nope. Not today. I’m done.”

    Should they be honoured? Yes. I said that in my previous post, if you would like to actually read that.
    But they should Not be honoured the same. They should develope their own honour.

  • Raven

    Does qualify a desk jockey who died of a heart attack in the office at the IRS.
    It does qualify the EPA bureaucrat who falls in a swamp and cracks his head and/or drowns.
    It does qualify the Department of Education official who falls down the stairs.

    It qualifies quite a few people who are clearly undeserving.

  • Raven

    means that unless the bill is clarified to expressly state otherwise, then postal workers do count.
    This is the government, remember. ANY confusion means they are included.

  • dt

    “Killed” does not mean “died.” As such, all of your examples would not qualify under the act even as currently written.

  • dt

    Becuase unless you have one, I can assure you that statutes are not interpreted as you suggest.

  • dt

    I’m curious why, in your view, they shouldn’t be honored in the same way given that they are making the same sacrifice for our country. I take it you believe, that because the military can’t simply quit at a moments notice (and many civilians on deployment overseas can’t either by the way), that that fact alone means that the flag shoudl be reserved for them. I’m sorry, but that distrinction alone doesn’t make any sense to me in light of the sacrfice made here by both the civilians and military being honored. Both civilians and military personnel that are killed by terrorists while doing their jobs make the ultimate sacrfice that they can for our country, and whether they can quit at a moments notice or not at all (and I still submit that the differences you posit are not as great as you seem to assume), the sacrifice made is the same.

    To sum up, I have friends and colleagues, civilians and federal employees all, who volunteered for year long commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan (and no, they couldn’t easily back out of those commitments either), and I simply do not accept that their patriotism and service is any less valuable than that of our soliders’. I also fail to understand why you’d give a state police officer a flag at his/her burial when he/she is killed on duty, but you’d deny that same honor to an FBI or ATF agent killed while doing his or her duty. All are patriots who, if they are honored in this manner, have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country and deserve this honor as much as any other American.

    I doubt I’ll convince you since we seem to be approaching this issue quite differently, so I’m happy to leave it there.

  • Raven

    Have you not noticed? Or do you just not have that much direct experience with government bureaucracies?

  • kal56

    Were your father and grandfather killed in action? My father received a flag after he died, to honor his service in World War II, even though he never left the US. The war ended before he could deploy. He was on orders to the Pacific at the time. My father-in-law fought in the Battle of the Bulge, among other actions. He returned from Europe and received his flag upon his death many years later. My son and I both returned from Iraq alive and when we pass, hopefully many years hence, we will receive flags due to our military service.

    Why are all these different circumstances all rewarded with a flag? Because all stepped forward and accepted the same risk. Some went in harms way and never returned. Others were lucky enough to return. Others ended up providing other service.

    The proposed bill would provide civilians who were killed (i.e., not died of natural causes, and not just for service) in a war zone with a flag.

    Most of my time in Iraq, however, was as a civilian. Nearly three years. I resolved to say a prayer each Sunday for those I knew who were killed. I am “lucky” enough to only have to say prayers for five Americans.

    Two military. Three civilians

  • foreignserviceofficer

    Erick Erickson’s blog on this issue is wrong-headed, ill-informed and patently offensive. In my job as a Foreign Service Officer, Consul, and Director of a Passport Agency — yes, I issue passports (I do not “stamp” them) – I have put my life on the line several times at several U.S. overseas posts. In Ethiopia, there was gunfire daily from the new rebel force that had just taken control of the country. My children frequently had to run the gamut of uncontrolled shooters to attend the international school that was only a few blocks from my home in Addis Ababa. I risked my life to help warring rebel factions encamp in the remote wilds of Ethiopia and to begin the process of demobilizing. An unknown terrorist threw a grenade into the embassy compound, where it exploded and did substantial damage. In Uganda, there was gunfire in my neighborhood almost nightly from a terrorist group (the Lord’s Resistance Army) or criminals. I helped several Americans who were shot and seriously wounded receive ?adequate? (and I put that word in quotes purposely) in Kampala?s dirty and dimly-lit hospital. In Mogadishu, I was shot at directly twice while going to meet a contact, who never did show up. And on my first day at the US Liaison Office in that war-torn city, there was a massive fire fight just outside the wall of the old embassy compound. U.S. Marines, pinned down outside the embassy wall, blew a hole in the wall to escape, threatening the lives of the civilians and soldiers inside. Fortunately, no one was killed, that day, although the military officers and enlisted with whom I served side by side told me that that was the worst fire fight they had ever seen. I also witnessed the shooting down of the Blackhawk and the taking of Warrant Officer Durrant as hostage. The bodies of U.S. soldiers were being drug around the streets of Mogadishu by mobs, and I spent several days and nights, with no sleep, working to secure the return of those bodies so they could be sent home to their families. In Ecuador, the embassy was twice closed, for significant periods of time, because of specific and concrete terrorist threats. In my 10 years in China, though I was not in any war zone, I was in many life-threatening situations: because of lack of traffic safety, public sanitation, poor medical care, and mob mentality. Outside the consular section I was nearly crushed to death by a mob of visa seekers who went wild when told they would have to line up. More of the same happened after we, the United States, inadvertently bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. In that mob situation, the Chinese government was complicit: it bused protestors to the embassy site, provided them rocks, and even gave the protestors lunch breaks (ironically, McDonald?s burgers and Coca-Cola). My son, of whom I am immodestly proud, is a new Air Force officer, and at his commissioning ceremony last month, he took the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States that I took when I joined the Foreign Service. I have had Foreign Service friends and colleagues die in service at the U.S. embassies in Addis Ababa, Kampala, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, and Riga. To say that these honorable men and women do not deserve a flag to thank them for their service and for the ultimate sacrifice they made is despicable. I find it strange that Mr. Erickson somehow sees civilian employees of the USG as “volunteers.” I am not a volunteer. I can be ordered to serve anywhere by the USG, and that was part of the deal when I signed up for the Foreign Service. I completely and honestly respect the sacrifices that the men and women of the U.S. military make in serving our country, but we must also remember that they, too, in Mr. Erickson?s eyes, are volunteers. Nobody forced them to join the military, just as my son was not forced to participate in the Air Force ROTC. They did so on their own and willingly for the pay and conditions offered them. The draft has not existed since we left Vietnam. Yes, they may have also done so with altruism, wanting to serve their country. But so did I when I became a public servant. Mr. Erickson, you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about; however, you do seem to know that the argument you’re making is designed to offend people of all political persuasions and beliefs. I suggest you rethink your ill-informed position, and recall your denigrating comments about civil servants. I have “stamped” U.S. visas in foreign passports, and issued U.S. passports to American citizens at home and abroad. I believe that doing so was and is an important part of the security of our nation and its borders, despite your notions to the contrary.
    Bob DeWitt, a proud Foreign Service Officer, civil servant, and Director of the Minneapolis Passport Agency.

  • gekster

    You say:
    My children frequently had to run the gamut of uncontrolled shooters to attend the international school that was only a few blocks from my home in Addis Ababa.

    If my kids had to run through gunfire, I would not send them to school, but would home school them.
    If they were getting shot at , why did you send them out.
    It seems you don’t care, or you are misstating facts.
    I don’t know, and will not put words in our mouth.
    You tell me.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Please put in some white space by breaking you comment into multiple paragraphs. Much easier to read and follow that way.

    I found your comment it almost impossible to follow because it was one large block of text. As a result, all I can gather is that you’ve been stationed in several dangerous stations abroad in the past that have put you and your children in harms way. And that you are upset that Mr. Erickson seems to be denigrating your service to our country.

    But I don’t see how the worth of your service is being subtracted if this bill does not pass, as it just means continuation of the status quo. Rather, you should focus on that you contributions are being acknowledged, even though the means (i.e. flag presentation) in this bill is a misguided

    I would wonder, though, if there were another way to honor those expanded categories of people that the new Act is meant to pay respects to without intruding into an unique honor that historically has been reserved to members of the Armed Forces.

    It’s really not a zero-sum game here.

  • foreignserviceofficer

    About the lack of white space: Yes, this was my first post. I wrote it in a Word document and cut/pasted to post, but all of the lines and indentations went away! I know how frustrating it can be to read something without white space. Sorry for that. Is there a trick to inserting lines once the text is in the comment box? And is there a way to go back and edit my text to add lines?

    On the children: Obviously, if there was gunfire at the time my children left for school, we didn’t sent them. But there were times when the gunfire broke out after they had already left. In the beginning, we let them walk to school — after all, it was only up the road a short ways from our home — but then we started sending them in a car, which could get them home or out of harm’s way in a hurry if necessary.

    To Civil Truth: I believe we can do more to honor those civil servants who have given their lives to their country. And presentation of the U.S. flag is a good beginning. It is the overall tone of Mr. Erickson’s piece that bothers me. He does indeed denigrate civil servants, and it is particularly galling that he uses as his point of derision the public service of “stamping passports.” I don’t think presenting a flag to a military officer or enlisted is diminished by the fact that it might be presented to a worthy civil servant’s family. You’re right: it is not a zero-sum game, and I wonder why you, apparently the American Legion, Mr. Erickson, and others are upset that someone who gets a flag for making the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Is there another agenda that is not spoken? I am open to hearing more. Thank you.

  • kal56

    As best as I can tell, the purpose of the bill is to provide a flag only for civilians killed killed due to enemy action.

    Are there really people who think real soldiers would resent a flag being presented to the family of a civilian killed in action?

    Remember, veterans don’t have to be killed in action to receive a flag. They receive a flag when they pass on (hopefully many many years) after their service to our country.

    While we all must recognize and praise the special risks, hardships, and suffering our combat soldiers endure, there are plenty of soldiers, marines, Aarmen, sailors and civilians backing them up. And due to the nature of the wars we are fighting now, they take casualties as well.

    My son, who returned safely from Iraq, will receve his flag when he passes on in old age. He wouldn’t begrudge the presentation of a flag to the families of the civilians who served with me in Iraq who didn’t return.

  • kal56

    As best as I can tell, the purpose of the bill is to provide a flag only for civilians killed killed due to enemy action.

    Are there really people who think real soldiers would resent a flag being presented to the family of a civilian killed in action?

    Remember, veterans don’t have to be killed in action to receive a flag. They receive a flag when they pass on (hopefully many many years) after their service to our country.

    While we all must recognize and praise the special risks, hardships, and suffering our combat soldiers endure, there are plenty of soldiers, marines, Aarmen, sailors and civilians backing them up. And due to the nature of the wars we are fighting now, they take casualties as well.

    My son, who returned safely from Iraq, will receve his flag when he passes on in old age. He wouldn’t begrudge the presentation of a flag to the families of the civilians who served with me in Iraq who didn’t return.