President Obama's "Volunteers"

[CJ 92]

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new “volunteer corps” and consider whether “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people” should be developed.

The legislation also refers to “uniforms” that would be worn by the “volunteers” and the “need” for a “public service academy, a 4-year institution” to “focus on training” future “public sector leaders.” The training, apparently, would occur at “campuses.”

"Why "is" the "article" so full of "quotation marks"?"

It "happens" a "lot" in "the west" nowadays "for" no good "reason" apart "from" people "liking" it. Makes me to be honest.

[Juan_Bottom]

You have got to be sh*tting me that no one cares that this is mandatory? Who gives a crap about the uniforms? That is a trivial point. Anyone (other than Obama) even read the Constitution? This is a direct violation as it is forced servative. Forced homework is not a big deal, because it is not making a slave out of you. You don't actually even have to do it.

However, I read that it was still supposed to be a volunter core. For now.
Text of HR 1388
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h111-1388

More talking points.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03 ... d-service/

The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 "new service opportunities" under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional "corps" to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation.

But the bill's opponents -- and there are only a few in Congress -- say it could cram ideology down the throats of young "volunteers," many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a "Congressional Commission on Civic Service."

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."

"We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn't emulate and probably can't imagine," said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. "The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative."

House committee staff insist the GIVE Act will not change the voluntary nature of service.

"Its ridiculous to suggest that our bill includes any effort to make service a mandatory requirement. All of the opportunities our bill provides to Americans are voluntary. Americans are proud of their service and volunteering and their interest in it is only growing, especially in the face of this crisis. Our legislation recognizes that more Americans than ever want to serve and give back and provides them with more opportunities to be able to do so," Miller spokeswoman Rachel Racusen said in an e-mail to FOXNews.com.

Others say they are concerned that the increased funding will be used to promote one ideology over another.

"It's allowing taxpayer funding of the left-wing organizations," said Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union.

Hey now; lets do our best not to get caught up in "this is for the enviroments so it's good" or "this is for the vets so I'm going to support it." Let's remember that there will be an investigation as to whether or not they can expand this into a forced servitude program. And that is counter to what this nation is supposed to be about.

[Snorri1234]

You have got to be sh*tting me that no one cares that this is mandatory? Who gives a crap about the uniforms? That is a trivial point. Anyone (other than Obama) even read the Constitution? This is a direct violation as it is forced servative. Forced homework is not a big deal, because it is not making a slave out of you. You don't actually even have to do it.

You're forced to do plenty of things, this is not a big deal.

[got tonkaed]

Ive worked with people from Americorp on habitat sites before, and until the official provisions of this change to manditory from voluntary, I think your just getting a little riled up. I also think in some ways there is a bit of an overreaction (though perhaps an understandable one) in terms of this ideology thing. While certainly the increase in jobs is not going to entirely be disaster relief or infrastructure projects, if that is what they are focusing on, it wouldnt be the end of the world. Again I understand the ideological objection on historical grounds to the manditory aspect, but i feel this has been overplayed at the moment at least by people are who are trying to grind their own political axe.

Id still maintain there are objections to be raised given the timing, even though i support infrastructure projects as a general rule.

[PLAYER57832]

Mandatory Public Service should be used for those that owe a debt to society (which it currently is), not those that have done no wrong. If people so choose to do Public Service, then by all means do so, but don't force people into it. That really does take individual freedoms away. The US was founded on the freedom of being able to choose what you want to do with yourself (as well as a few other key things), making it stick out from the rest of the Western World that seem to view Group Rights over that of the Individual.

Interesting you used the words "debt to society" isntead of punishment. Because, the truth is that every kid DOES owe the country a debt, because the country has, to a point, supported every child in the United States. Some more than others, but always some.

You have got to be sh*tting me that no one cares that this is mandatory? Who gives a crap about the uniforms? That is a trivial point. Anyone (other than Obama) even read the Constitution? This is a direct violation as it is forced servative. Forced homework is not a big deal, because it is not making a slave out of you. You don't actually even have to do it.

There is a movement to suggest homework IS involuntary servitude.

[dewey316]

Because, the truth is that every kid DOES owe the country a debt, because the country has, to a point, supported every child in the United States. Some more than others, but always some.

If you really beleive they owe some sort of debt, they will pay that, through taxes that they pay during the lifetime, in fact guess what, our kids, and grandkids are getting to pay OUR debt too.

The bigger question is, what debt does every kid owe us, that is deserving of forced labor. Or, better yet, what debt the retired seniors, whom this bill also might effect, owe society that they have not yet paid.

Prisoners who are paying "a debt to society" really do owe it. They are not contributing via taxes, they are not contributing to nation industrial production, they DO owe something. This is much different that using some line of reasoning that every youth in this country, owes society for being some sort of burden, because we have instituted public education. They are miles, or better yet light years, apart.

GT,

It has nothing to do with the validity of the projects, it is the idea that the governement is overstepping its constitutional limits. That is no little thing, it is a big thing, and well worth getting riled up. To be fair, I was just as fired up with the Patriot Act (I wasn't on CC of course, when it passed), I am an equal opportunity constitutional supporter. . I could care less about uniforms, I would even be supportive of all public schools requiring uniforms. The difference comes when the government institutes required labor by minors, with the inability of their legal guardians to opt out of it.

If there was major reform of the way education was handled, and service was required for admintance into some form of publicly funded school that offered specialized skills training (for example). I would be fine with that. If the government wants to offer kids the option to be included in special programs as a reward for their time, i wouldn't be happy about it, but I wouldn't really have much of a legal basis to be against it unless I could show it was discriminatory. But when you take the CHOICE away from parents, the government has crossed the line.

In fact, I went to a private school so I could finish my high school education. Part of going there, was mandatory community service for me, and my parents were required to help out at the school for X number of service hours. The difference is though, that was a choice my parents and I made. We could have opted to me to not attend that school if for some reason we did not agree with the premise of the service. If you require a public school to do that, the parents and child have no choice, that is where the government is over stepping its bounds.

[got tonkaed]

I believe this is where we are in disagreement. I am not ideological enough to be primarily concerned with the issues you are concerned with. Personally i view government from the project to program level, or as a sum which is composed of its parts. I certainly get the sum being more than its parts approach, but i dont think its a very useful one when you have a bloated government like ours is. At the end of the day it would seem greater responsibility and coherent analysis of each program is far more important that debating ideology that isnt even universally accepted anymore as it is a vestiage of an important past, but a past nonetheless.

But i do agree with you in regards to there being issues with any type of overstepping here of mandate. As you suggest it would be a poor policy platform to not allow an opt out as we have had that for numerous public programs in the past even in times of war. If we are willing and able to allow individuals to opt out of that form of national service it would seem to follow that we should allow them to opt out of this variant as well.

I actually like your second provision even though you are not a fan of it and there are pitfalls. I believe in that way you can provide a bit of a pragmatist common political ground. In many ways it answers conservative criticisms about incentivization of any good activity while allowing liberal program to continue. Of course the incentivization would be up for debate and there would be issues of equitable oppertunity in some areas but its probably a better starting point. Again however without knowing the precise particulars, i have a feeling your concerns about parental involvement, while fair are unnecessary as i believe such an opt out clause will be included and allowed.

[dewey316]

I believe that as the bill is writen, for the most part there will be opt outs available. The issue is, that the opt out clauses are not included in the bill. The bill is very vague, and that is part of what scares me. There is very little verbage about manatory service in this bill, but the language is there, without definition and without clauses. But, it leaves the absolute mandatory option as actualy being on the table. That is why I oppose this bill so much.

[got tonkaed]

I believe that as the bill is writen, for the most part there will be opt outs available. The issue is, that the opt out clauses are not included in the bill. The bill is very vague, and that is part of what scares me. There is very little verbage about manatory service in this bill, but the language is there, without definition and without clauses. But, it leaves the absolute mandatory option as actualy being on the table. That is why I oppose this bill so much.

makes sense. I guess the only comment id have about not including the exact opt out clauses is that while it does provided a potential for an abusive negative, its not without positives. By too explicity stating the opt out clauses you probably slow the process and miss out on things that will need to be added later which opens up potential for other unwanted adds. While if the bill passes there will probably have to be another bill to lay these things out anyway, i dont feel anyone has to worry so much yet that these things wont come. As many have sort of suggested, far too many people dislike this idea of complusory involvement to not have opt outs available in a variety of ways.

[muy_thaiguy]

Interesting you used the words "debt to society" isntead of punishment. Because, the truth is that every kid DOES owe the country a debt, because the country has, to a point, supported every child in the United States. Some more than others, but always some.

Woah, wait a second. Every kid? Maybe those that rely on MediCaid and the what not, but in terms of education, all the Federal Government does is say to the states "You need some level of standards." And the the states have it from there, except that crappy standardized testing thing, which is a royal pain in the ass (from personal experience, and from many other peoples experience as well). The states decide (or at least, they are supposed to) what the students in their borders learn. Not to mention there is the matter of private and home schooling. Not the Federal Government. And students are supposed to pay the states, and yes, even the Federal Government back by becoming successful after they are done with school. Most students already have enough crap going on during their time at primary school that they really can't afford to do much else, let alone several hours of forced service.

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting you used the words "debt to society" isntead of punishment. Because, the truth is that every kid DOES owe the country a debt, because the country has, to a point, supported every child in the United States. Some more than others, but always some.

Woah, wait a second. Every kid? Maybe those that rely on MediCaid and the what not, but in terms of education, all the Federal Government does is say to the states "You need some level of standards." And the the states have it from there, except that crappy standardized testing thing, which is a royal pain in the ass (from personal experience, and from many other peoples experience as well). The states decide (or at least, they are supposed to) what the students in their borders learn. Not to mention there is the matter of private and home schooling. Not the Federal Government. And students are supposed to pay the states, and yes, even the Federal Government back by becoming successful after they are done with school. Most students already have enough crap going on during their time at primary school that they really can't afford to do much else, let alone several hours of forced service.

If you are born in this country, no matter how poor, no matter your situation, you are already far luckier than most children born in other countries. This is not something you did or earned, it is a gift you have received due in part to what your parents have done, but also because of what society at large has done.

If you further grow up to be successful, yes, your parents and you absolutely are to be congratulated. However, no one gets there alone. In almost all cases, there are others within the community building and supporting the child. That is true if you are wealthy and have every tutor available and it is true if you are a child who is almost neglected at home. It is most true for the average child who grows up in a reasonable home and reasonably decent community.

Taxes, too, are a part of it.. but only a part.