TTI Forums

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132365.html

GIVE ... til it hurts.

I’m not seeing the black helicopters with this news…

It does not sound like compelling volunteerism – Selecteering as they might phrase it in the Armed Services.

As I read this that they are just expanding the capacity of an existing program for volunteer national service. It seems like the
Legislators are anticipating higher unemployment rates in the near future. To me this move seems like a similar reaction to the Civilian Conservation Corps that FDR initiated during the Great Depression. This is a textbook Keynesian response.

Oh I don't see black helicopters either, but this is the first step towards mandatory volunteerism that Obama promised. I have a big problem with the mandatory part. Also, a program such as this can only serve to make the citizenry more confortable, on a grand scale, with the expansion of government on a grand scale. And the rhetoric regarding the necessity of service just sickens me.

I missed the mandatory part... Where was it?

The bipartisan commission will be tasked with exploring a number of topics, including "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation."

This one?

I read that part in the article, but didn't see it in the actual bill. But it is a big bill, and the devil is in the details.

Mrs. Musashi suggests that we may be further down this slippery slope than I knew. Apparently many secondary schools are requiring civic service as part of their "portfolio" culmination exercise. And then of course impacted and prestigious Universities have evaluated civic service as one their admission criteria. So may be it has begun?

My fiend Stuart Hayashi wrote the following on the subject:

-----------------


When I pointed out to many people at once that President Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and their henchmen in Congress had publicly expressed their desires to impose laws requiring young people to perform "community service," some apologists for the President denied that anything like that was on the agenda of either the White House or Congress. In the apologists' view, it was just another low-down and desperate attempt by the Republicans to scare people about the opposing party.

However, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill called the HR 1388: The GIVE (Generations Invigorating Volunteerism & Education) Act. The bill itself does not require this mandatory community service. However, when the bill was first introduced in the House, Title VI, Sec. 6104, B said,

Specific Topics- In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:[... now go to where it says "(6)" --S.H.] (6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds [emphasis added].

Fortunately, that egregious part of the bill was removed from the version passed by the House. However, the version passed by the House -- which is moving on to the Senate -- still includes Title I, Part II, Section 120, (b)(3), which says,

YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE PROGRAM- The term "youth engagement zone program" means a service learning program in which members of an eligible partnership described in paragraph (4) collaborate to provide coordinated school-based or community-based service learning opportunities, to address a specific community challenge, for an increasing percentage of out-of-school youth and secondary school students served by local educational agencies where--

(A) not less than 90 percent of the students participate in service-learning activities as part of the program; or

(B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency [emphasis added].

Not every school is a "youth engagement zone"; what the bill says is that special federal funding will be doled out to "youth engagement zones" that impose "service-learning" as a "mandatory part of the curriculum."

One particularly disturbing part of the bill has been removed. However, mandatory "service learning" is still promoted in the bill, so an apologist for the President would be incorrect in stating that the current version of the bill only promotes that which is voluntary.

I think people are missing the point. The whole point of this is to undermine charities; the largest charities usually being associated with conservative groups which oppose the current regime, such as church based groups. It does this on two levels: first, it reduces donated funds and personal time available to charities since there will be an increased sense of "giving at the office". Second, it creates resentment toward public service by forcing people to serve. I've known so many people who hate reading because they were forced to in high school. This won't be any different.

And since govt is always more inefficient than private enterprise, I expect the net services available to underprivileged persons will actually decline.