Senator Barack Obama is proposing to remake American society in a way that the American public does not yet understand.
In his July 2, 2008, speech calling Americans to national service, Obama departed from his prepared remarks to announce his support for a mysteriously named “civilian national security force”:
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Many commentators were stumped. What is this “civilian national security force” that must be as well funded as the military? Is it merely our existing civilian national security force, the militia, or perhaps the FBI and the CIA? Or was Obama referring to some thuggish new paramilitary street organization?
The answer to this mystery is not hidden. It is prominently displayed in Obama’s speeches and in the position papers on his website. Obama is referring, neither to the militia nor to a reincarnation of the Brownshirts, but rather to his unprecedented plans for universal community service for young people and for hugely increased funding for a myriad of voluntary service programs for the rest of us.
Earlier posts dealt with mandatory service for middle and high school students, voluntary service for college students, and college “Serve-Study” laid out in Obama’s speeches and his “Plan for Universal Voluntary Citizen Service.” This post covers his other service programs.
A. Green Job Corps, YouthBuild Program
Although Obama’s education proposals would effectively reach over 90% of the 47 million middle, high, and college students in the country (perhaps leaving out only private secondary school children), what about the 2 million young people who are out of school and unemployed or in prison? To reach young prisoners and the young unemployed, Obama will add a new Green Job Corps, “an energy-focused youth jobs program,” and expand by six-fold the YouthBuild Program, which teaches housing construction to low-income youth.
B. AmeriCorps VISTA, Experience Corps, Senior Corps
What about the middle-aged and older Americans not covered by these programs for the young? Obama plans to enlist retirees in his civilian national security force “on a large scale” and to expand service programs for baby-boomers and the elderly: AmeriCorps VISTA, the Experience Corps, and other Senior Corps programs.
C. Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Peace Corps, Global Energy Corps
Among other “transformative” community service proposals, Obama will more than triple the number of full-time AmeriCorps members to 250,000 and distribute these new members among five new “Corps”:
1. a Classroom Corps for teachers and students;
2. a Health Corps to improve public health;
3. a Clean Energy Corps to conduct weatherization and renewable energy projects;
4. a Veterans Corps to assist veterans at institutions; and
5. a Homeland Security Corps to deal with emergencies.
Not only will “Barack Obama . . . double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by its 50th anniversary in 2011 and push Congress to fully fund this expansion,” but he will create a "Global Energy Corps to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions overseas and promote low-carbon and affordable energy solutions in developing nations.”
Barack Obama is proposing so many new “Corps” that he runs out of distinctive names for them. Note that his new Global Energy Corps is not to be confused with his new Clean Energy Corps and his new Green Job Corps.
D. Social Investment Fund Network, Social Entrepreneurship Agency for Nonprofits, Corporation for National and Community Service
But Obama is far from finished:
Barack Obama will create a Social Investment Fund Network, . . . a government-supported nonprofit corporation, similar to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that will use federal seed money to leverage private sector funding to improve local innovation, test the impact of new ideas and expand successful programs to scale.
He promises us that this new corporation will not be just a single entity, but it will involve “a network of funds.”
That’s not all; he’s going to create a “Social Entrepreneurship Agency for Nonprofits”:
Note the tone of these proposals: none of this false modesty about proposing these new agencies and Corps to Congress and working for their passage. His Plan simply declares: “Barack Obama will create” this; “Barack Obama will create” that.Barack Obama will a create an agency within the Corporation for National and Community Service dedicated to building the capacity and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector.
All these programs are just the ones listed on the service pages of his campaign website. This list doesn’t include his most expensive program: health care. All these add up to the biggest expansion of the US government since FDR. If Obama gets most of what he wants, he will make libertarians look more fondly on the relatively modest proposals of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Obama's New "Corps" And Other Service Programs.
- Obama’s College Service Programs.
- Involuntary Associations and National Service.--
- Community Service for all Middle and High School Children.--
Forced voluntarism at the federal level is frightening and absurd. I can only imagine the list of organizations qualifying. Coming from Chicago and knowing who Obama owes favors makes me suspect that many high school students would be assigned (or permitted) to do grunt work at the mayor's office.
I'm also a bit unsure of the legal ramifications of what would probably be such a specific and onerous condition on federal funding for education. "You don't get the money if you don't require each and every student to volunteer" doesn't seem remotely connected to any legitimate federal interest.
Also, I'm sure all of these "volunteers" will be unionized, eventually.
FDR started numerous programs during the depression to put people to work and try to kick start the economy. In the 1990s People like Tom Hayden pushed for program where we would send young people to college if they then served something like five years in some public service position (Police, Fire, etc). The difference between these proposals and what Obama seems to be proposing is that the people are forced not by their need for employment or the need to find away to pay for college, but the need for the government to find people to fill the quota for these corps. How long before we must all register for such service as men do for military service.
While checking Obama's position papers to make sure that this article wasn't some kind of satire, I came across this (above). Someone please tell me that he won't actually have the power to do this.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
1. BHO writes on own speeches.
2. David Axelrod is the brains behind the campaign.
3. BHO has a hypnotic influence on his workers and associates and excites extreme loyalty and devotion. As you might expect, he leads a cult-like organization.
4. While BHO is actually very intelligent, he does not like details and limits himself to broad themes.
5. No one is controlling BHO. He sets the goals and policies.
6. Look for David Axelrod to be running the US government (if BHO is elected), most likely as chief of staff. BHO will set the policies, but David will implement them.
7. BHO is an extreme narcissist, who likes to give speeches to adoring crowds. At this point its not clear as to whether his narcissism goes as far as a personality disorder.
As I posted recently, Axelrod is highly competent.
Your last point actually surprises me to some extent, having read the Audacity of Hope.
The schools had to partner with organizations chosen by the CAC in order to get the money. The organizations were radical; if the thrust of an organization was something as basic as raising math scores, it wouldn't have been considered for partnership by the CAC.
To recap- it seems the CAC used the money as a lure to partner schools with radical organizations, the intent being radical political indoctrination rather than improving the students' education. No radical politics, no money.
Somewhat related, a little history in photos of the depression era Civilian Conservation Corps:
Garrison cap
Heroic art 1
Heroic art 2
Join and eat
Insignia
In uniform
3C's, Maryland
"The Civilian Conservation Corps left its monuments in the preservation and purification of the land, the water, the forests, and the young men of America."
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
FDRG.W. Bush.Fixed that for you.
I was wondering about that one, too. It didn't sound clearly bad to me.
These cadres sounds like the brownshirts and hitler youth to me. As for the claim of voluntary, we all know the peer pressure takes a lot of the freedom of choice out of play.
And it is all to be paid for by the redistribution of wealth program that was the theme of the DNC.
Like the federal money and drinking age give-and-take with the States, the program is at best tax-funded blackmail and at worst an Orwellian lesson in keeping in line with the party.
And the difference was?
Get yer program here!
Can't tell one socialist from another without yer program!
Can't step like a goose without a certain-colored noose!
Can't dance to the beat without a song sheet!
Manifesto, sir? I have a special on this here little red book. And the suffering has been reduced by half -- this week only -- on all autobiographies.
Maryland requires community service for high schoolers - it has the effect of erecting another barrier to graduation for borderline students and adding another thing to the ever-growing list of non-academic tasks that schools have to worry about. I like Obama, but this is an idiotic and poorly thought out plan. Maybe we can just ask the federal Education Department to concentrate on making the programs Congress has already seen fit to mandate quasi-functional before creating a new one for them to administer in a half-assed way. I mean, I know it's the American way to create a program on paper and declare victory, but I think it's time for change.
I think that in some ways, the United States has embraced individualism to a fault. There is little thought to civic virtue. While I do believe that the common good is often accomplished by individual (and, in a non-prejorative appelation, selfish) actions, it is also true that the fabric of civil society is best held together by those who also have an eye toward the "common good". While there are a number of private civic organizations that continue to perform these actions, and these should be encouraged and lauded, I think it is also true that in our increasingly fragmented society, there may be a place for government encouragement of civic society, through both education and increased incentives for civic work.
As to the substance of Obama's proposals, I am agnostic. Politics is the art of the possible; this has identified a problem, and I know that this will not pass as proposed.
After all, we are our brother's keeper. We do not simply do for ourself, and hope the invisible hand keeps our brother safe.
The NKVD were MUCH more brutal, and yet history has almost forgotten them thanks to the Duranty-esque whitewash of Soviet crimes by leftist reporters and historians.
"Your last point actually surprises me to some extent, having read the Audacity of Hope."
That's funny because that was the immediate impression I got from his books. Even to write a memoir in one's thirties is an act born of narcissism.
I thought that Congress has the power of both the "sword and the purse". It is no longer clear after this administration if the Congress really has the power of the sword (although, in fairness, you can trace this back to Vietnam); are you arguing that Obama will take control of the purse as well? Or that the Republicans will lose so badly that the Democrats will have 60 votes in the Senate, and all will vote with Obama and take their orders from him?
And, once you accept that Hussein is nothing but another cheap, crooked Chicago race hustler, you'll also recognize that all the domestic corps programs are nothing more than programs to put politically vetted pals on the public payroll where very little will be expected of them. It will be modeled after Hussein's public service.
As has been discussed previously, if you wish to be taken seriously, you should probably refrain from the over-the-top rhetoric. Do you call McCain "Sidney"? How about John Sidney McCain III? No? Then why should anyone read (let alone believe) your comments?
BTW, did you mention civic/national service? I lost you at "Hussein".
I wanted to say the kernel of difference is that between voluntary collective action and coerced collective action, but I realized (given my little knowledge of it) that one could make the case that Marxism is more about reacting to supposed coercive action. In which case, it seems we're no longer comparing political theories but a political theory and a conspiracy theory.
Personally: I accept libertarianism to the extent that it meshes with my own voluntaryism. Collectivism is a big red herring for both sides. It's just that the Left likes to beat people with it.
I;m going to post my own (heretical) thoughts here. I have long thought that extreme Marxism and extreme libertarianism were but flip sides of the same coin. The idea that all good springs from the group, without the individual, is antithetical to human nature and doomed to failure. The idea that all good springs from the individual, without the group, is also doomed to failure. There is a healthy (moderate) balance between the two.
You're leaving the economic system out of it. Marxism has them taking (stealing) all property and then redistributing it based on government opinions of "need". Eventually this always results in stagnation, declining standards of living, and very often poverty and starvation. (Also rampant corruption, because government and party officials very often mysteriously start deciding that their families, friends, cronies, etc. "need" a surprising high share of the "people's" property, the plumb jobs, etc.)
And libertarians have no problem with civic virtue, volunteerism, charity, etc. as long as it is voluntary - all time and monies given to these organizations or efforts are freely given with no coercion, threats, etc. Of course the organizations have to be pursuing legal, moral, legitimate ends as well. If a "voluntary charity" involves harassing and stealing from particular ethnic groups and then spending the money on charity members or giving it away that isn't a legitimate "charity", it's a criminal group.
So libertarianism has no problem with charities and civic organizations as long as they are truly voluntary, their funding is truly voluntary, and they are pursuing legitimate ends that don't harm anyone or violate their rights. In my opinion that is consistent with true civic-mindedness - not trying to force you views, projects, or opinions on others.
From the sound of it I think various rightwing and leftwing ideologues have painted the picture of libertarians as selfish, mean, bitter, greedy hermits, likely because they wouldn't go along with whichever agendas or projects the ideologues were forcing or trying to push on people at the time. That isn't the case.
Note that this is a simple case of rent seeking, which any economist could tell you results from manipulating prices. And yet politicians routinely propose price controls and their equivalents (quantity restrictions, etc).
No, I think we don't disagree on some things. I think there is a difference between a healthy understanding of economics and "extreme libertarianism". There is a reason and purpose for government, and reason we have one. Given the complexities of modern life, and the imperfections of the market (not to mention normative societal goals), a government that exists with the consent of the governed is necessary. Once that is established, the question becomes one of particularity- is a given intervention good or bad.
Extreme libertarianism, like extreme Marxism, presupposes that ideology has the answer; either government is always bad, or government is always good. I prefer the intermediate route, which is to have government on the sidelines as much as possible (call it a presumption), but also acknowledge how necessary it is for certain issues (a rebutable presumption). I think there is a problem with the civic-mindedness in the United States; as mentioned, I do not know that Obama's plan is a good way to address it; I would rather see alternative plans mooted than the critique I have been seeing, "BHO is a collectivist and wants to bring back the brownshirts!"
Personally, I blame the boomers for the lack of civic-mindedness, and should we continue down this course, we'll be no matter than Nigeria, with everyone demanding some baksheesh to accomplish what they should be accomplishing. Or, at least, a high-paying lobbying job.
Note that this is a simple case of rent seeking, which any economist could tell you results from manipulating prices. And yet politicians routinely propose price controls and their equivalents (quantity restrictions, etc).
Well yes, but if you have a criminal law which forbids stealing - as all legal systems do - then it is clearly stealing and other forms of crime as well. And I mentioned ethnicity in the example though I really didn't get into it. If they are targeting specific ethnic groups this is racist, ethnosupremicist, discriminatory, etc. as well.
And in the example if politicians were imposing price controls based on ethnicity this would clearly be racist, approaching a kind of neo-nazi social engineering.
And the Dems have been saying for eight years that Bush would bring back the draft.
As far as I understand libertarianism, it recognizes government as a tool: first for self-defence, then for law and order, and then maybe for dealing with externalities (well, that's what I've read, anyway). It's bad in that it can't be trusted to be good. I don't think what you're describing is that different, and I don't know what you really think the difference is.
American Psikhushka, indeed, but it's so much less disturbing to think about when I pretend that proponents of such systems would ever accept the logic of rent seeking being a bad thing. They usually shout one down, instead.
I think you should be able to gather the difference from both what I have said and the (many) comments by others on the (many) posts here. A fanatic is one who fits the facts into their ideology; a realist shapes their ideology to fit the facts at hand.
I don't believe that a libertarians would necessarily stop there, even committed ones; you list national defense; that is merely one example of a public good (with associated free rider problems). There are other public goods that some (most?) libertarians would see that there would be a need for government intervention.
Some libertarians, conversely, would prefer private methods for dealing with externalities (viewing it in terms of Coase, as opposed to a Pigou); I think that's silly due to transaction costs, but go figger.
I could go on, but you get the point. I hate ideologies as much as I hate Illinois Nazis.
"Mandatory volunteerism" has a catchy ring to it.
If public school students should wear uniforms, shouldn't adults lead by example by doing the same thing? Before I support any such proposal, however, I do want to see color swatches. My eyes are blue and some shades of brown do not bring out their full color and do them justice.
Given the plethora of proposed "corps", can a proposal for a "Corps Czar" be far behind?
Small-'L' libertarianism can be just an ideal, but it requires most of us to accept that ideal, otherwise it stops working (status quo coerced or complete upset).
I guess I'm just not deep enough in the Volokh clique, since I don't know how all that differs from what you said or what Illinoi Nazis have to do with it.
I think that the best way to forestall a communist revolution is to forgo extreme libertarianism. Just as todays libertarians misread and misrepresent Adam Smith, so did yesterdays Marxists misread and misrepresent Marx. Which is why both Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital should be required reading in all introductory econ. courses.
The scathing critique, backed by statistics, that Marx wrote of capitalism, did not come to pass, because of the rise both of democracy and unions. This is not to be, necessarily, pro-union (although I am pro-democracy), but the idea of revolution is unlikely to come about unless people believe that their situation is both miserable and unlikely to improve for both themselves and their children. While this does not argue for wealth redistribution, it does mean that certain things are necessary- protection of stability to allow for individual freedom and economic opportunity, while also affording opportunity to the least of us. This is a delicate balance, and it is easy to go to far either way (too much intervention leads to inefficient markets and slow economic growth, hurting everyone, while a completely bifurcated class structure lends itself to a poor outcome for society as a whole, and breeds the conditions that make revolution more likely).
I think it was remarked, if you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose. The genius of America is to make sure that people have something to lose. That's where civic mindedness (and ownership) comes in.
I think there is a difference between a healthy understanding of economics and "extreme libertarianism".
All very subjective. What some might label "extreme libertarianism" might just mean that they aren't aware of certain economic principles.
There is a reason and purpose for government, and reason we have one.
Yes. But sometimes the reasons and purposes are incorrect, wasteful, harmful, disproportionate, etc. A police force (providing it is honest, fair, effective, and not corrupt) is generally agreed to be a necessity. But what about a police force whose function is to steal from and exploit a particular ethnic group, as in some totalitarian regimes? This is government that has no legitimate reason and no legitimate purpose, and therefore does more harm than good.
Given the complexities of modern life, and the imperfections of the market (not to mention normative societal goals)
Often what are called "market failures" are just certain interests trying to rig, control, etc. various markets in their favor.
a government that exists with the consent of the governed is necessary. Once that is established, the question becomes one of particularity- is a given intervention good or bad.
There are also governments or parts of governments that are not consensual, not legitimate, and sometimes illegal - going against the laws of the government in question.
Extreme libertarianism, like extreme Marxism, presupposes that ideology has the answer; either government is always bad, or government is always good.
Well the label "extreme libertarianism" is a problem because I'm not sure how you're defining it. According to sources like the economic freedom index, generally the more economically free (the more it approaches libertarianism) a country is the more successful and prosperous it is.
But extreme Marxism has demontrably always been bad - eventually resulting in stagnation, declining living standards, and very often poverty and starvation. It also basically requires a police state to exist and usually is plagued with rampant corruption.
I think there is a problem with the civic-mindedness in the United States;
Personally, I blame the boomers for the lack of civic-mindedness, and should we continue down this course, we'll be no matter than Nigeria, with everyone demanding some baksheesh to accomplish what they should be accomplishing. Or, at least, a high-paying lobbying job.
Not sure what you mean here, could you elaborate or give examples?
But not these politically incorrect uniforms.
I followed the link. Of note are some of the top performers:
#1: Hong Kong. Part of China; repressive government allowing economic freedom.
#2: Singapore. Not a fan of canings, big fan of bubblegum.
Don't even get me started on the socialized medicine on that list! Anyway, I agree that totalitarianism is bad (are there those who argue otherwise, other than the dictators themselves and their flunkies). But arguing that 'extreme Marxism' has always been bad is a straw man; I can point to countries that do fine with various degrees of socialism (like our neighbor to the north (7), or Ireland (3), or Switzerland (9), or the UK (10)) as well as point to the lack of an 'extreme libertarian' (stateless or near stateless) country that has done well. There is a difference between arguing for less government intervention and arguing that all government (except for police and natl. defense) are bad.
As for examples- I think that there has been a decline in civic mindedness due to the boomer generation. A combination of turned idealism (from we will change the world to greed is good) and distrust of America and its government as a concept. The previous generation that fought together in WW2 as a shared enterprise had a different take on it. This is a personal view, and YMMV. It could just be the typical 'things were always better in the past' fallacy, or there could be something to it; I think that the decline in third spaces, the increased mobility of individuals, the breakdown of extended families, and other factors of modern life also have contributed to this. I think that the government should play a *voluntary* role in finding ways to bring some of this back.
Sort of like assigning Origin of Species and Philosophie zoologique (Lamarck) in biology, eh
No, not like that at all. There is a difference between the political implications of a work and the value of a work in economics. I know that Greg Mankiw has read Das Kapital. Have you?
#1: Hong Kong. Part of China; repressive government allowing economic freedom.
#2: Singapore. Not a fan of canings, big fan of bubblegum.
It's an index of economic freedom, I should have stressed that I was referring to the "economic" part. So these aren't all models of social and economic libertarianism.
But arguing that 'extreme Marxism' has always been bad is a straw man; I can point to countries that do fine with various degrees of socialism (like our neighbor to the north (7), or Ireland (3), or Switzerland (9), or the UK (10))
Those countries aren't actually socialist. Austrian economics (at least Mises) refers to the "social democrat" countries as "hampered market" economies. They have relatively high taxes and a high amount of regulation, but there is still fairly strong private enterprise there.
The point on Marxism still stands. Where it's been done for real the results have been as I described - bad, often horrible.
...as well as point to the lack of an 'extreme libertarian' (stateless or near stateless) country that has done well. There is a difference between arguing for less government intervention and arguing that all government (except for police and natl. defense) are bad.
I think you're mixing things up. "Stateless" or "lawless" does not equal libertarianism. Libertarianism refers to a high degree of economic freedom coupled with a high degree of social freedom. Nearly all libertarians believe in laws, just some debates on how much government there should be.
As for examples- I think that there has been a decline in civic mindedness due to the boomer generation. A combination of turned idealism (from we will change the world to greed is good) and distrust of America and its government as a concept.
I'm not so sure that's it. There are times when the government certainly needs to be viewed with a skeptical eye - basically all the time.
And the beauty of capitalism is that it enables self-interest to benefit the common good. But the babyboomers are actually enacting statist/socialist policies to rob the present at the expense of the future. It's not all their fault, the main problems with a central bank, a fiat currency, economic ignorance at all levels, politicians focused on hack short-term economic policies to ensure re-election, etc. were present before they arrived on the stage.
The previous generation that fought together in WW2 as a shared enterprise had a different take on it.
Well the problem with that is when they create an "enterprise" that is wrong or harmful. They tend to fanatically stick with it, even when they are dead wrong. But I guess that generation doesn't have a monopoly on that kind of stubborness.
It could just be the typical 'things were always better in the past' fallacy, or there could be something to it; I think that the decline in third spaces, the increased mobility of individuals, the breakdown of extended families, and other factors of modern life also have contributed to this. I think that the government should play a *voluntary* role in finding ways to bring some of this back.
I think think there is a lot of nostalgia there. A lot of it is generational strife due to the boomers and their parents trying to push the younger generations around - robbing the younger generations for their entitlements now. (While this wasn't done to them - they got to get ahead and raise their families without interference.) A lot of it is just the economic problems from the factors mentioned above. Not that any of it is OK or should be tolerated.
I would be just as surly, lippy and lazy as I could, then practically DARE the 'boss' to 'fire' me. Then I would demand all the same benefits of those volunteers who worked hard and were pleasant and competent.
I would be a typical union/gov't worker, times two.
Around 1967 at the University of Chicago, I was talking to one of the radical guys in my dormitory, call him Brad. He argued that only a radical change in government would bring about a better society. I disagreed.
He said that his movement would become stronger, and eventually I would agree with him. I asked, what if I didn't agree with him, even later? He flashed anger and told me that if I didn't agree on my own, he would make me agree. I saw that as the end of the discussion.
(Continued at EasyOpinions - Leading the People)
Matches my dreamy brown eyes and has a overall slimming effect.
So, I got that going for me...
And with the jackboots too? I'm irresistible.
Not cover to cover(s). Of course, I read it in a course on Western Political Theory and "Reading Marx, Rethinking Marxism" and certainly not in any of my economics classes.
B. More taxes
C. More taxes
...
N. More taxes
O. More taxes
P. More taxes
...
cont.
Perhaps we could ask Andrea Merkel to explain it?
All of the slippery slope arguments are being vindicated before our eyes. From the much scoffed at assertion that unchecked abortion rights would lead to a public acceptance of vanity based infanticide (and yes, I personally know one woman who aborted a child when she discovered that it was female), to the Culture Wars gambit that lead to a "need" for the creation of youth corps.
How many years has the left spent deriding and condemning the traditional sources of civic pride? We've been inundated with messages that there is something fascistic about saluting the flag, joining the military, and saying the pledge of allegiance. Progressives having been busily scraping a hole where we once found positive outlets for young people to do good works. If churches are painted as refuges for narrow-minded bigots and creepy sexual predators, they are no longer places where teens will find their way toward the experience of doing charitable works. If the ROTC is portrayed as a training ground for baby killers, what decent minded young person would funnel their nobler energies into participating there? As every institution that once served to usher us from the selfishness of childhood into a humane and giving adulthood has been torn down, ridiculed, and demonized, they will now offer us a grand new scheme to fill the vacuum that they created.
Isn't a healthy dose of skepticism called for? If volunteerism in the service of noble goals is such a vitally important part of civilized society, then why did the same actors participate so enthusiastically in tearing down the structures that used to encourage such acts? And yes, Bill Ayers is one who comes immediately to mind. He and his friends have been much busier in the last 30-40 years than most of us realized.
I don't want to live in the brave new world these baby boomer losers are trying to foist on us, nor do I want my children marching lock-step in their little armies. Obama is free to run for the office of president, but the "Leader of the Free World" part is an honorary designation, not a damn mandate.
http://www.americorps.org/
Their budget - $888,462,000 for '09, according to their web site.
I'm suspicious of any sort of 'mandatory volunteerism', personally. Make it mandatory, and that kind of cancels out the 'volunteer' part. This expansion of 'voluntary/mandatory service' isn't something that's exactly endearing as far as Obama's plans for the country goes. I wonder how long it'll be until he proposes changing the flag, as well?
Does anyone believe that a president who believes that race and ethnicity is more important than ability will be able to develop a functional volunteer program instead of some horrible example of political correctness?
In addition, look at the summer jobs program in DC this summer. No show jobs, poor management, some not paid for work, non-students working. What makes anyone that such a program can be expanded to the national level?
You wrote . . . oh, wait. You wrote Hussein. I thought you were trying to make a substantive point.
Obama the empty suit, the Affirmative Action HE-RO, wants to take our 11 and 12 year old kids for indoctrination. Isn't that a swell idea?
Speaking of welfare parasites if McCain has a pair first thing he should do is issue an executive order suspending the Davis - Bacon Act and impounding federal funds from local and state governments that have such laws on the books. That and repeal the tax exempt status of private schools and colleges along with freezing pensions and all other spending to last years actual expenditures. Heck, he might even balance the budget in his first year if he did that.
As for coerced volunteerism, like I said let the parasites first work for their food and shelter. Then get back to us actual net taxpayers.
Government should back off, lay off "do-gooders" and let those who know what they're doing to get on with it. Mr. Obama should go back to teaching. That's where his ego would be best served and where he will have an endless stream of adoring fans.
Or perhaps not. The "stipend" I received worked out to be a pretty good equivalent of an hourly "wage." And, no accountability, no responsibility, no actual work to do. Oh man, good times.
I'm in total support of this. In a few years, my child will need a car. This would be a great way for him to "earn" the money and learn about the uselessness of government.
There are already dozens of programs that do what Obama is proposing (Teach for america, state and federal americorps, peace corps) he's not proposing conscripting anyone to do those things, just expand the opportunities for people who want to do them.
I actually think his college volunteer program is kind of neat, the cost of college tuition is a real problem.
Please do not call Barack Obama "Hussein." The point has already been many times before. It's not the name he generally goes by.
I wonder how those verbal terrorists over at koz or DU will respond.
Obama is on record as saying his domestic "force" should be funded to the same extent as the U.S. military.
Individual federal income taxes have risen about 50% from when Reagan was in office. Can I see a show of hands: who thinks that things are 50% better now?
And who thinks that Obama's big new idea to spend $500 billion+ more every year on this make-work indoctrination project will be worth the money spent?
...Spicoli? ...Anyone?
Damn, I thought he was going to buy us all guns.
Hell to stop forced labour I would agree with a union.
As to cubabob why should private schools lose their tax exempt clasification? Assuming they are not for profit? Don't we want to encourage education?
Hell to stop forced labour I would agree with a union.
As to cubabob why should private schools lose their tax exempt clasification? Assuming they are not for profit? Don't we want to encourage education?
1. Funny how 12-year-olds are too young to get real jobs, do real work, make real money, help their families and save for college--but they're old enough to be drafted by Obama into his make-work program.
2. I suggest the best service that young people can perform is attend to their studies, get a real job in the private "sector", support themselves and their families, save for retirement, pay their own way, and give Big Brother the badfinger at the polling booth.
By the way, the above is no advertisement for McCain, an anti-free-speech warmonger. If you believe people should be accorded the right to live their own lives and pursue their own goals in non-coercive interaction with others, the only candidate out there is Bob Barr.
I think perhaps the chief tragedy of our time is the proportion of the population, especially the intellectual population, either oblivious to or dismissive of the actual productive economy in which most adults participate and in which 90% of the meaningful "service" of, by, and for the people is carried out.
He might also want to increase opportunities for Americans to participate in volunteer programs, but that's not what the quote is about.
I got your required reading right here.