Over at the Center for American Progress, they have posted the following pointed statement issued by Lawrence Korb concerning the Flag “Desecration” Amendment to the Constitution. Here is an excerpt:
As a 23-year navy and Vietnam veteran, as a former official in the Reagan Defense Department, as a former professor at the Navy War College and the Coast Guard Academy, as a second generation American, as a lifelong Republican, and as a longtime member of the American Legion, I revere the flag and that "for which it stands." As much as any citizen, I still get a lump in my throat when I see the flag raised or lowered. Nonetheless, I am unalterably opposed to S.J. Res. 12.
As I understand it, one of the main goals of passing the amendment at this time is to show support for those currently serving in the armed forces in the war against terrorists with a global reach, as well as our veterans of previous wars; I would suggest that the Congress could help them much more by addressing the failings of the Bush administration that adversely impact our current and future veterans. Let me mention but a few:
First, the administration refuses to endorse Congressional proposals to allow Guard and Reserve members to participate fully in the military’s Tricare Health System. This coverage should be available regardless of whether or not their units are currently deployed, rather than limiting access to deployed reservists or cutting off coverage eight years after the end of any deployment. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it will help retain those reservists who have been called up more frequently and for longer periods than the norm.
Second, the administration has failed to appropriately fund the VA. Last year the Department of Veterans Affairs admitted that it lacked the necessary resources to meet health care demands. The Bush administration’s FY07 budget also falls $1.3 billion short of what is needed for medical services according to the Independent Budget for FY 2007.
Third, in an effort to raise $800 million from veterans, the Bush administration has continued to recommend a $250 enrollment fee for Priority 7 and 8 veterans. The administration has also called for an increase in prescription drug copayments from $8 to $15.
Fourth, the Bush administration’s failure to provide body armor has cost lives. The New York Times reported that a “secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor.” Body armor “has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field.” Additionally, the Pentagon has refused to reimburse troops who purchased their own armor.
Fifth, the administration has fought tooth and nail to prevent disabled veterans who are also military retirees from getting “concurrent receipts” of both their retired and disability pays. Were it not for the Congress, disabled military retirees would still be getting shortchanged. As it is, they will have to wait until 2010 until this system is completely changed.
Sixth, the Bush administration actively sought to reduce hostile fire pay and family separation pay while our troops were fighting wars in two countries and our troops were spending an unprecedented amount of time away from their home bases.
Finally, in spite of the unprecedented strain being placed on the active duty Army and its reserve component, the administration continues to resist permanently adding 40,000 troops to the active Army. Members of the Senate, if you are concerned about those who have and are serving in our Armed forces, you will deal with these six issues promptly. They need this much more than a constitutional amendment that infringes on our freedom of speech.
Korb goes on to detail all the things that are wrong with the amendment itself. And while I agree with nearly everything he says in the statement, I certainly do not share his opinion that, “the motives of the sponsors and supporters of this amendment are beyond reproach.” By my lights, the flag burning issue is no different than the gay marriage issue—a diversionary ploy to redirect our attention away from the radical right’s unbridled greed and unprecedented governmental incompetency. If the Bushies had not done such a miserable job during the past five years, no one would want to burn any flags. After all, I don’t recall much flag burning going on during Clinton’s stint as president. And while I don’t personally have the desire to burn any flags, I can certainly understand the kind of frustration that would lead someone to do so—not as a way of demonstrating one’s anti-Americanism, but as a way of protesting how fast this country has been thrown to the wolves of fundamentalism and authoritarianism. Rather than hiding behind the flag-burning red herring, I suggest we cling to our only line of defense against the creeping infringements of our rights--namely, the protective shroud of the first amendment. It's bad enough that our votes don't get counted properly. The least they can do is allow us to protest the current political state of affairs however we see fit. What's more American than that?
Recent Comments