Expanding our government. Restricting our liberties.

[elfs]

So, here's what Obama's section on "National Service" currently reads. He calls it voluntary, but I call it extortionist. Twice: once, when he takes our tax dollars, and again when he requires your participation (along with your indelible membership in Federal identification databases) in whatever structured activities deemed necessary by your government.

Calling this a "brownshirt operation" is simply disengenious. None of this can happen without the consent of Congress, and there's going to be a lot of wrangling, and I'm going to be first to pound on my representative not to pass stuff like this. It will be a violation of our law to have an operation loyal to our President, rather than to our country; worrying out loud about another Reichstag Fire is irresponsible and incompetent fear mongering.

I have no doubt that Obama wants to go down in history as an important and transformative President; I'm equally confident that he wants to go down as a successful president and that, unlike Bush or McCain, he has some kind of clue as to how that's done (hint: more Clinton without blowjobs, less Reagan even without Iran-Contra). This all looks clean and automatic on paper and electrons; I'm curious as to how it will appear after it's travelled through Congress.

My major concern with the below is not that it, as FallenPegasus contends, federalizes all non-profit institutions, but that it de-incentivizes private philanthropy to the point where the philanthropic system, with its evolved set of checks and balances, whithers away. Without competition, that layer of our American infrastructure, vibrant thus far mostly because it's been left alone to weed out its own problems and highlight its own successes, will rot the way welfare did until Clinton helped kick it in the ass.

Expand Corporation for National and Community Service: Obama and Biden will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000 and he will focus this expansion on addressing the great challenges facing the nation. They will establish a Classroom Corps to help teachers and students, with a priority placed on underserved schools; a Health Corps to improve public health outreach; a Clean Energy Corps to conduct weatherization and renewable energy projects; a Veterans Corps to assist veterans at hospitals, nursing homes and homeless shelters; and a Homeland Security Corps to help communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies.

Engage Retiring Americans in Service on a Large Scale: Older Americans have a wide range of skills and knowledge to contribute. Obama and Biden will expand and improve programs that connect individuals over the age of 55 to quality volunteer opportunities.

Expand the Peace Corps: Obama and Biden will double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011. They will work with the leaders of other countries to build an international network of overseas volunteers so that Ameri- cans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries.

Show the World the Best Face of America: Obama and Biden will set up an America's Voice Initiative to send Americans who are fluent speakers of local languages to expand our public diplomacy. They also will extend opportunities for older individuals such as teachers, engineers, and doctors to serve overseas.

Integrate Service into Learning

Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation's Schools: Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year. They will develop national guidelines for service- learning and will give schools better tools both to develop programs and to document student experience.

Green Job Corps: Obama and Biden will create an energy-focused youth jobs program to provide disadvan- taged youth with service opportunities weatherizing buildings and getting practical experience in fast-growing career fields.

Expand YouthBuild Program: Obama and Biden will expand the YouthBuild program, which gives disadvan- taged young people the chance to complete their high school education, learn valuable skills and build af- fordable housing in their communities. They will grow the program so that 50,000 low-income young people a year a chance to learn construction job skills and complete high school.

Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.

Promote College Serve-Study: Obama and Biden will ensure that at least 25 percent of College Work-Study funds are used to support public service opportunities instead of jobs in dining halls and libraries.

I'm still gonna vote against John McCain, and help and encourage others to do the same. I'm more opposed to what McCain stands for.

Comments

[fallenpegasus]

I also have fears about the mandatory community service for jr high and high school students.

I am willing to bet that a fair amount of that "community service" will be focused on "reeducating" those students in proper ways of thought...

[resonant.livejournal.com]

I really really hate mandatory "volunteer" work on principle, but it seems to be working well in Canada as the students get to choose whatever organization(s) they want to work for. If it's mandatory service with a SPECIFIC organization, then it's definitely at risk of abuse.

The problem with making service mandatory is that it dilutes the warm fuzzies of those of us who do it because we want to. As a student, I volunteered at a local museum. A local businessman turned me down for a summer job; I later found out that it was because he saw me working there, and assumed that I was a miscreant sentenced to community service.

[trinsf.livejournal.com]

This already exists at all the schools my children have attended. They get to choose what they do, they just report the hours at the end of the year.

My son was trained to be a peer crisis counselor and was an online chat/IM person for that. Because he wants to be a psychotherapist/poet, it was a way for him to connect with peers and practice compassionate listening.

My daughter volunteers at pagan events, school cleanup days, and a once yearly New Year's eve children's event. Many other students fulfill their community service hours by tutoring classmates or planning school community events, though working with animals is another big one -- lots of animal shelter volunteers. At every school I know that students have community service hours, those hours have all been indepedent, student-driven, and not at all focused on "reeducating students". There's been no vast volunter corps being indoctrinated.

Now, I have had problems with some volunteering. A number of parents will write on school mailing lists and parent websites I participate in about finding volunteer stuff for their kids that falls into two categories: 1. No ongoing commitment, something you show up, do 10 hours of, and leave. 2. "Scary" community service, which is evidently meant as some sort of warning to their children.

The latter bothers me much more than the former. When a parent talks about a volunteer opportunity like handing out supplies to homeless people as great because of how terrible everyone is, how bad they smell, how poor they are, I have to question if they're trying to encourage community participation, or just scare kids into staying in school.

I have mixed feelings about volunteering for teens. It is currently practically required for any college applicants, so there's a lot of hustling to show a 20 hour volunteer commitment, which results in a lot of dubious "volunteering". On the other hand, I think that encouraging students to be a part of a wider community is a value I'm okay with, though it may not be one that you and I share.

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

Interesting, and most of the private schools I know of require a significant amount of 'community service'. Now, with some of them, it is mostly slave labor tending to the school grounds, but I know the Catholic school I and my siblings attended required us to also do things like help the homeless and visit the elderly. They certainly tried to indoctrinate us in the proper ways of thought. Hello, that's what schools have always been about.

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

Could you explain what the word "reeducating" means to you in this context?

I get the vague impression that this word should elicit some sort of fear in me, or at least some concern, but, since I don't find "education" to be at all frightening, and the idea of "re-educating" someone (which I take to mean is something akin to 'changing their minds') isn't frightening either, I am left with the idea that it is the content of what these students will be educated in which is the source of possible concern.

[tagryn]

"I'm more opposed to what McCain stands for. "

To say the least.

Considering the constant volume of anti-McCain/Palin posts you've made the past 3+ months, with a lack of any balancing posts on whether Obama might have his problems as well, where's this sudden reluctant-Obama-supporter stance coming from?

[grum]

He never gave me the impression that he was Pro-Obama.
Simply that he was ANTI-McCain.
(emphasis intended)

[tagryn]

Elf! said he voted for Obama over Clinton in the primary, and then until the past couple of posts was silent about anything he disagreed with Obama on, while constantly riling on and on about McC/P. That's not exactly the actions of a reluctant, reflective guess-I'll-vote-for-Obama-considering-the-other-choices voter.

There's only so much that can be construed from silence, but I kept waiting for some sense of balance to show up, and it never happened. Maybe Elf! had considerable reservations about Obama, but they were never mentioned here, at least from what I can recall reading.

[grum]

It's a blog. I only expect balance from sources that claim to be presenting an impartial view of a matter*.

That said, I'd forgotten that he posted about his** votes in the primary.
Admitting that I do not recall the specifics, was he "for Obama" in the primary as well, or just "anti Clinton"?

*And I'm not naive enough to believe that an article is unbiased just because it is peer-reviewed. Also I'm not cynical enough to believe that wikipedia is wrong simply because anyone can edit it.

**Hi Elf, sorry to be talking about you in the third person in your LJ. But not sorry enough to stop given that I am, in fact, talking about you, not to you.

[tagryn]

Um, let's see...(quick Google search later)...the post I was referencing is here from back when the WA-D caucuses were held.

I know, if I don't like a blog, I should stop reading. I'm complaining a bit because I like reading Elf's entries, and he finds a lot of interesting stuff. If anything I hold him to a little higher standard on consistency than a blogger I'm not familiar with, maybe, because I know he's a smart guy and capable of better.

Not to be crude, but ...

[lemur123.livejournal.com]

When an elephant is pissing and shitting in your living room, you tend to comment more about it than the donkey farting in the corner.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

Is the philanthropic system working well enough now?

I noticed its operation in my daughter's (public) school: the school district has woefully underguessed its needs, so that services are cut, one after the other. Librarian? not any more; field trips? only if the kids have gone begging (literally) enough; special ed. teachers are not sufficiently funded for the job they're doing, which means that kids who could have been doing some sort of work - don't.

What I'm seeing right now, within the local school district (and food banks, and homeless shelters, etc.) is that systems that are (at least theoretically) funded by the government (at its various levels) are being pushed beyond the brink of usability. There is simply not enough money to go around. Charities are being hit (because there is not enough private money to go there).

But why is it wise (or wiser?) to rely on money gathered for these social needs outside of a tax system?

I'm curious about this because it seems to me that in both cases, the people supplying the money are also supplying the direction for which it will be spent - in the form of either checks-to-the-specific-charity or the regular political involvement of a citizen in a democracy. So why is the first option better than the second?

[fallenpegasus]

Because the first system will run out of money faster when it fails it's mission.

It's called "community involvement".

Given money to orgs that I like is it. Being taxed, isn't.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your response, FallenPegasus.

Why is paying taxes not community involvement, though?
That's the thing I have not managed to understand. I mean, we vote on so very many propositions, measures, and candidates - why is it different?

The only difference that I see is that in the philanthropy-only model, it is possible for someone to say "I will have nothing to do with the community", while in the taxes-only model, that stance is not possible. Is that the problem with it? Or is there something else?

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

I don't know about others, but I feel the philanthropy model allows me more control over where my dollars are going. However, I do feel we still need taxes for the community services that serve us all, like transit, parks, food banks, etc. A combination of the two methods works best in my opinion.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

I agree, Lisakit - a combination works best.

I like the fact that I can spend my money to give direct support to causes that are underfunded. The fact that that money is tax deductible for many charities is really nice, too - it's direct federal support for charitable giving with minimal federal intervention in the specific cause being supported (this is probably one of those checks and balances Elf mentioned in his post).

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

Quick history refresher:

The Founders said "Taxation *without representation* is tyranny"; they never said "Taxes are tyranny".

Nobody particularly *wants* to pay taxes, but if taxes are evil for you & you don't want to play, then don't use the roads, don't use the water, and don't call the fire department.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

HeOfMany... ...some people do want to pay taxes. Like me.

I particularly do want to pay taxes. I can see what a society that tries to do away with government-funded programs would look like, and I most definitely do NOT want to live in that sort of place.

And I don't think that we can tell people that if they don't want services they can just opt out. That would be the philanthropy-rather-than-taxes approach, wouldn't it? And what would you do if such a person was knocked over the head by a falling piano and lost their memory while breaking several limbs? Not treat them?

[fallenpegasus]

Plus, let's analyze this from the Public Choice Theory point of view.

What is the interest of the bureaucrats overseeing these programs? Why, to expand their reach! And then what is the countering interests of opposing politicians? To reduce the cost!

The inevitable result is that these volunteer programs will become over more mandatory, with the various opt-out "loopholes being closed", and the number of "volunteer" hours being increased, while the "pay" is stagnant or decreasing over time.

People just "John Galt" the economy just by signing up for all these "volunteer" opportunties, and then working with all the vigor and energy that forced laborers and other people sentenced to "community service" are well noted for...

[qtplatypus.livejournal.com]

> What is the interest of the bureaucrats overseeing these programs? Why, to expand their > reach!

That is an overly cynical view of the civil service. I know from my experience in such a role a strong part of the culture was an understanding that we had been entrusted with the resources of the tax payer and we had to use those resources in a responsible manor.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with either one of you. I think the assumption that human beings are essentially running on "corrupt hardware" is a good one; sure, the explicit culture was one that understood you had been entrusted with public money and were responsible for it using it well; the problem is that you also share an implicit, unspoken, perhaps even denied understanding that if your reach contracted at all, some of you would be out of work, some of you would lose power and prestige. The human organism reacts very badly to even the idea of loss of power and prestige.

This is one of the reasons that I think it's cool Obama reads Neibhur. It's also one of the reasons I'm willing to vote for him. He hasn't been in office long enough to have absorbed the whole, human story. He understands that power corrupts human beings. Neibhur said you understand what that corruption was doing to you. Obama, I hope, knows enough to know when to get out while the getting is good.

Hillary and Obama are both familiar with Alinsky's aphorism, "He who fears corruption fears life."

Campaign reveal, no mold, character. McCain's character has been revealed to be petty and corrupt already. Obama isn't. He may be starry-eyed and ideological, but he's competent, thoughtful, and thus far humane. He's slow to act, giving the opposition time to master meaningful arguments that may sway his actions. That's what I want in a president. I won't get it for McCain. Hence, my vote, and my advocacy.

[trinsf.livejournal.com]

I dunno Elf, from our family's point of view, the service learning grants are a good deal.

$4000 for 100 hours of service? My daughter is already hoping this one gets passed in time for her to have it for college in a couple of years. As far as work-study being granted for public service work, I think that's great. My son's school, Reed College, already does this -- students with a work-study grant can choose to work off campus in a volunteer position and be paid with those funds. It expands the kinds of jobs available to students, and allows them to have work that more suits their interests -- for example, if my son had a work study job, he could do more psych-related things, instead of library work.

I understand the worst-case scenario concerns, but I haven't seen them played out in practice, for the most part.

[grum]

I thought it was $4000 for 400 hours of service, 100 per year for (assumedly) 4 years of education.

Reed's work-study arrangement sounds fabulous! I would have loved to be able to do something like that rather than work in the cafeteria.

[stephdray.livejournal.com]

I really don't have a problem with this.

Growing up, community service was a required and mandatory part of getting a high school degree. I don't want to tell you how old I am, but suffice to say that it was long enough ago that we would have realized by now whether or not I felt abused or extorted.

Quite frankly, in a country that requires our kids to go to school, I'm fine with requiring them to do some good in the community too--it's all part of a well rounded education.

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

Well, we do hove to remember that Obama is a Chicago politician. He knows full well that politics is the art of the possible, and that you always push for more then you really want, so that when you meet your opposition in the middle, you are actually close to where you wanted to be in the first place.

[fallenpegasus]

Which means that all offers from such politicans are shams and false pretenses.

Or, even more commonly, you "settle" for your "compromise", and then the next election cycle do it again, always pushing, never satisfied, always demanding more and more, every cycle.

And all the time lying a "be reasonable, meet me halfway".