Senate Overwhelmingly Passes National Service Expansion
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Democrats, Legislation, Republicans
Having more volunteerism in our communities is undeniably a good thing and the Senate just passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act by 78 to 20. So a big win for bipartisanship today.
Among other things, the bill would more than triple the number of positions in the AmeriCorps program, from 75,000 to 250,000, by 2017.The increase could have a huge ripple effect in national volunteerism rates. Last year, 75,000 AmeriCorps members recruited and supervised 2.2 million community volunteers [...]
In lean times, Americans rediscover community
Web site employs irony on homeless man’s behalf
At the same time, the bill would create four new national service corps and several other initiatives, including a so-called “Summer of Service” program to spur greater community outreach by middle and high school students. Older Americans would also be encouraged to volunteer more through the creation of a “Silver Scholars” program, under which individuals 55 and older who perform 350 hours of service receive a $1,000 award.The legislation would increase the existing AmeriCorps educational stipend offered to volunteers to $5,350 — the same amount as the maximum Pell college grant.
Now, to be fair, the bill passed in the House by a margin of 275 to 159, which isn’t nearly as bipartisan as the Senate. Not only that, the passage is scaring at least one congressperson…
It’s under the guise of — quote — volunteerism. But it’s not volunteers at all. It’s paying people to do work on behalf of government.I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.
Wanna guess who that was?
Some opponents of the bill say it’s fiscally irresponsible to spend money on this right now, but with the price tag totaling a measly $6 billion over the next 5 years, I’m not understanding that logic. Expanding these numbers could triple the amount of volunteers a year to 6.6 million. Do you know how much work each one of them would have to do a year (over a 5 year period) to pay for the program? $182. And I’m guessing that you’ll get the average volunteer to contribute work that’s worth well over that.
Still, I’m not surprised to hear that a large number of Republicans in the House said no to this. But as I’ve said in the past, they have to engage voters with better ideas or else they run the risk of genuinely being labelled the party of no.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 6th, 2009 and is filed under Democrats, Legislation, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
The fact that you buy into the framing of this as being about “volunteering” tells even a casual reader a great deal about you, Justin…
Not that there’s anything wrong with being on the left, of course. The problem is when those on the left start thinking their position represents the center.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Simon,
It’s an expansion of the AmeriCorps program. One that costs us $182 per volunteer, and probably gains us a lot more. It’s good economies of scale and helps people find a way help their country. Why are your framing this as a left vs. right debate? And making cryptic insults at Justin?
April 7th, 2009 at 9:03 am
JMG,
Why are your framing this as a left vs. right debate? And making cryptic insults at Justin?
Because he is a Republican/Conservative. It is as simple as that, there is no rhyme or reason to the party/movement actions right now. To the dead end believers its all about attack, attack, attack.
They’ve lost any inclination to be constructive and I for one want them to continue along on this track as they will also lose any hope of returning to power any time soon.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:32 am
What I don’t understand is how Simon get’s to decide what the center is as opposed to what he thinks the center is. Isn’t it all really relative? But Simon is obviously conservative- how close to the center depends on who you’re comparing it against.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Jacob Says:
Precisely my point. I’m not in the center, and I know it; Justin isn’t either, however, and I don’t think that he does know it. There’s nothing wrong with being a liberal, but it becomes seriously grating to hear someone on that side acting as though anyone to their “right” is way out in the wings.
It’s an ego fallacy: “I am a reasonable person, and reasonable person must be moderates, ergo I must be a moderate.” Doesn’t hold. There are reasonable people on the right; there are reasonable people on the left; there are also unreasonable people in the center.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Modern America is showing the patterns of pre WWII Germany. I am not exaggerating a bit. Look at the facts; The inflation in Germany before WWII was an extremely strong factor in setting the stage for the Wilhelm government to fall and Hitler to rise to power. The economic condtion of hyperinflation had political and social implications in pre-WWII Germany. Which America is talking more and more about the same scenario, where Obama’s great ‘Change’ will take over the world. As he says, “Think not of yourself as a citizen of America, rather think of yourself as a citizen of the world.” Two; Hitler’s youth, don’t you think is necessary to have the hearts and minds of the young people of America if you want to take control of the world? As Hitler did before in creating his Nazi Youth, Obama will do the same, both have different names but are the SAME concept and SAME tactics used by government. Three; Americas own blitzkrieg invasions, illegal wars, toppling of governments, and nation building. READ, CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN, this is happening more everyday, and until you start being afraid for the future and actually start reading and researching history and how todays events reflect yesterdays lessons, the public will be at arms with each other, not with the real culprits who sit on the wealth of nations.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Adam, Hitler also sunk money into shovel-ready infrastructure projects like the autobahns, too; is that also evidence that a President who sinks money into a shovel-ready infrastructure projects is secretly scheming to make himself fuhrer?
And isn’t the “illegal war” nonsense a little passe at this point? It was always nonsense, but at least when Bush was in office, I understood the tiresome partisan imperative that led to its rote recitation. Now he isn’t even in office, yet we’re still hearing it? What do you think you’re getting out of it?
April 7th, 2009 at 10:56 am
This expansion of paid volunteerism is worth questioning. It pollutes altruism.
I don’t quarrel with the theory as much as I do with its execution. How long has Americorps been around? What are its major accomplishments that it can point to? What areas of need has it targeted with the resources that it has consumed and thereby diminished these problems?
I’m really asking. Can supporters point to something more than things like building character and participating in programs? Is there any data that suggests that Americorps efforts have led to a measurable and substantial mitigation of any problem it has sought to resolve?
April 7th, 2009 at 11:32 am
KK, that’s exactly right. If you’re paid, you aren’t a volunteer in the sense of that term applicable to charities and public service. If, alternatively, we expand the definition of “volunteer” by substituting another sense of the term – having agreed to perform a given task – then we’ve drained all the relevant content out of it (any job is a “volunteer” job if all that is meant is that the person taking it chose to do so).
April 7th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Justin, it’s thinking like “measly $6 billion” that has us in the financial situation our country is in. Can you honestly say that $6 billion wouldn’t be better spent elsewhere, or not spent at all?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Well, we all like bright lines and clear categories when we can find them. But in the modern world, there are plenty of “volunteers” who do things for altruistic and or personal reasons for very little compensation. So I think it’s a bit of an overstatement to say it drains all relevant content out of it.
For example, our soldiers comprise what many like to refer to as a volunteer army. Would you say this drains out all the relevant content? That our soldiers receive room, board, and low wages diminishes their sacrifices by very little, wouldn’t you agree?
Since we are far more likely to see MORE low compensation/stipend level volunteerism in the future, I think we’re better off thinking of it in terms of “pollluted altrusism” than pining for a bright line between categories. I think that ship has largely sailed.