"civilian national security force"?
It came to mind today as I read the Washington Times op/ed "Rotten to the AmeriCorps" deploring the Obama budget's proposal to spend $1.4 billion (yes, billion!) to create an army of government funded "volunteers" (for which taxpayers would pay about $10,000 apiece)
through the Corporation for National and Community Service and its AmeriCorps program.
Groups like Planned Parenthood -- yes, the same people who want to teach 10-year-olds to think of themselves as "sexual beings
" -- receive support through AmeriCorps. It's all about politics, friends, not voluntarism.
Given the growing disparity between the "two Americas" -- i.e., those working for the government vs. those working for the private sector
-- I think taxpayers are already doing quite enough to support those who are purportedly in "public service" without also oxymoronically paying for government "volunteers."
Contrary to the President's 2008 statement, we don't need this (or any) kind of government-funded civilian force.
Remember back in the campaign when then-candidate Obama called for the establishment of a