That may be because it was more or less a continuation of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, signed into law by President G.H.W. Bush.
There wasn’t a blogosphere back then. Your average nut didn’t have his own political organ.
Well, he did, but he couldn’t squirt it all over the Internet! 
Nonsense! You need to get out of the 'Boro more! Travel to the liberal city or even to West Tennessee and breathe the good Democratic fresh air!
IIRC, the concern raised in that thread was that there were financial incentives for schools to increase their student participation, which would encourage the schools to make it compulsary. Does that sound right to anyone else?
I had missed this one. I agree with those who are saying this Godwinization that is going on about “Obamunist brown shirts” and “Arbeit macht frei” and “USSR of Amerika” nonsense is great entertainment, and that’s all.
You have to consider the source (idiots) and the content of their message (pure unadulterated idiocy).
Let’s consider it as a sort of “IQ test” to sort out and recognize the really really REALLY stupid people out there.
:eek:
Poly, I have to say that’s the first time one of your posts has ever made me go: “Eeeewwwww!”
Obama’s Creepy ‘Call to Service’
It was basically a reply to an Obama campaign speech in which he made a call to service. As noted above, it included the argument that certain aspects of the speech (if implemented) could lead to a rise in tuition costs, undercutting one of the goals it was seeking.
There is a lot more there, too, quite far from --and much more reasonable than-- the insinuations referred to by the OP. The closest he gets is referring to a quote by Obama:
Sorry if this post isn’t all that exciting, but I thought it prudent to add a bit of context to the Sam Stone reference. I may not agree with him politically for the most part, but letting some of the OP-referenced paint fall on him would be a mistake. ETA: not that Polycarp was insinuating as much.
FWIW, Peace Corps often makes people more conservative. After a couple of years in some village somewhere, you really start appreciating Walmart. It can make even the most extreme America-hater really appreciate the ways that American culture is unique.
(pssst…you forgot the colored text. It makes it more right.)
There was apparently a point last fall where Obama’s transition website was calling for mandatory community service for school-age children and college students. Some generally right-wing blogs picked up on it, and it quickly disappeared. This may be the germ of the idea that the loony sites linked upthread are touting. Certainly, there do not appear to be any mandatory provisions in the actual bill.
Yes, just to be utterly clear: they are (a) wrong, and (b) idiots. The wrongness alone might be grist for debate, if the wrong conclusion had been presented convincingly and was likely to be believed. But when you combine being wrong with the obvious idiocy, there’s very little effort in summarily dismissing the claims.
I will admit that the language about permanent cadres creeps me out quite a bit - but this is merely an unfortunate turn of phrase describing an administrative setup in the NCCC. Moreover, it was there in the original legislation in 1993 - this bill includes it only because those sections are being amended.
So I’m only worked up to the degree that these programs are an example of government overreach - which my party is hardly immune from succumbing to the temptations thereof. Even noteworthy conservatives over the years like Buckley have gone all squishy over public service - far too much for my taste.
I’m all for service, and even government service, but I think the necessary role of charities and private organizations has to be preserved here.
The right aren’t even good at making up names. Chimperor rolls off the tongue. Obamafurhen? Awkward and lame. They won’t start winning again unless the abuse gets a lot more catchy.
To reiterate the point about something becoming ‘mandatory’ - there is clearly nothing in this bill that makes service mandatory. That’s an important distinction to make.
However… If the bill has the effect of putting conditions of service on necessary funding, it gets awfully close. A good analogy would be the highway act and the 55mph speed limit. No, the federal 55mph law was not ‘mandatory’, but if your state didn’t abide by it, the feds would threaten to cut off your state’s highway funds. Since the states had long ago come to depend on those highway funds, it was a de facto mandatory program.
In Chile under the Allende regime, opposition newspapers were threatened because the state wanted to nationalize newprint production and put price controls on private newsprint that would be guaranteed to end production, putting de facto control of the press in the hands of the state. Nothing here was ‘mandatory’ - it was just the state creating economic conditions that forced people into having to play ball with them.
My worry about this bill is not that it is creating jackbooted thugs or conscripting children into mandatory servitude, but that it helps create economic distortions which make everyone more reliant on the state. If a student ‘service’ program displaces a market that has built up over the years to employ summer students, and that market subsequently goes away, you wind up in a situation where the students are more reliant on the state, and while service may not be mandatory, it might as well be. Especially for poorer kids.
Another point was that if the government makes funding of schools conditional on their meeting ‘service quotas’, then even if the program is not mandatory it might as well be, because the schools will in turn put pressure on parents to force their kids to be involved.
The details in the press release are pretty scant and can be interpreted any number of ways. One thing I did notice is that the bill would call for a subsidy for members of this program equal in size to a Pell grant. Obama proposes to raise the Pell Grant amount to $5,500 and increase it every year at the level of inflation plus 1%. So this money would be available to anyone who joins the National Civilian Community Corps. This is going to put a lot of pressure on poor seniors and other poor people to ‘volunteer’ for these programs - especially if Obama continues de-funding private charity and other organizations less connected to government.
For example, the bill explicitly calls for the de-funding of the Points of Light Foundation. If the goal here is to simply promote volunteerism, why would he do that? The POLF is trying to do exactly what he wants - it connects volunteers with people who need them, helps businesses and communities set up volunteer programs, and provides resources to organizations and communities who are running volunteer programs. But Obama wants to completely cut their funding. Volunteerism is good - so long as it’s controlled by the state.
I don’t see a price tag associated with all this. This looks like the creation of more large government bureaucracies. The Pell grant amount is the only specific dollar amount mentioned. It also calls for a minimum quota of 250,000 volunteers by 2014. At that level, payouts to the ‘volunteers’ would equal aboout 1.4 billion dollars. So we’re not exactly talking about a budget buster here.
This is a much smaller proposal than the sweeping changes he called for before the election that I outlined in that other thread. And really, the frothing about it from the right-wing blogosphere is premature. The devil in this is really going to be in the details. We have no idea at this point what a ‘green corps’ would look like. It could be totally benign, or insidious. A benign form would be giving modest payments to seniors to go out for a walk and pick up any trash they see. An insidious version would be to create corps of activists who are empowered by the state to get into the face of the citizenry. For example, by going around and writing down violations of environmental regulations and turning them to the government, or being empowered to to come to your home and demand to inspect your attic insulation or something.
But at this point, we’ve got no evidence of that. The most alarming thing I see about this is that it’s yet another data point on the trend towards the government insinuating itself more and more into people’s private lives. Especially troubling is the de-funding of more private organizations that are already doing some of this work. So I’d oppose this on that grounds, but it’s a long, long way from there to ‘brownshirts’.
I wondered about the defunding of the Points of Light Foundation as well - but that organization merged with the Hands On Network a couple of years ago and is now known by a slightly different name.
There might be a mission shift as well necessitating this deletion and having the organization compete for funds within existing channels.
I’m not too bent out of shape over it, unless I find out more.
I don’t like the bill, but it’s because of this part “Revises under DVSA: (1) the VISTA program; and (2) the Senior Corps, including the Retired and Senior Volunteer program (RSVP), the Foster Grandparent program, and the Senior Companion program.
Gives priority in VISTA participant selection to disadvantaged youth and retired adults of any profession.”
One large way VISTA is different than AmeriCorps as you have to have 5 years work experience (making most people 23) or a college degree to participate, because unlike AmeriCorps there is a lot of community building in fund-raising and administration done by these volunteers rather than directly working with those in need during all your hours of service; VISTAs hours are typically split 50-50% between direct service and administration . If you’re focusing on “youths” of any sort it’s severely relaxing restrictions. Why the need? You only have to be 18 to do AmeriCorps as it is.
Are they going to change VISTA to make it 100% action-based like AmeriCorps too? The point of installing VISTA members instead of just AmeriCorps members in community action offices is that the VISTAs can research and write grants, and work with businesses (we worked closely with RIF) while AmeriCorps members aren’t allowed to. More people working directly with those in need isn’t a great idea when there’s no one left to bring in funding for those programs to function.
Feh, he picked NC. He lost with them last year and he’ll lose again this year. He has no state loyalty at all and should put all of the country’s money on Illinois.
Yeah, I’m banking on his being distracted by his job so I can clean up like in The Sting. Except who the hell is Western Kentucky? He’d never believe it’s a real school.
You beat me to the mandatory service for school kids.
I don’t quite understand this one:
**Requires states to develop comprehensive plans for volunteer and paid service by Baby Boomers and older adults. **
I’m not sure what it means but I’d like to volunteer members of Congress to spend some quality time reading the legislation they’re voting on.
Have you ever gone to “career day” at a poor high school? You’d swear the military was a college funding program. The military is often the only real presence there and they really push the whole “we pay for your college” thing. The message is very clearly “This is your only real way out of here.”
So, there is already intense pressure on poor high school seniors to join the military. Personally, I’m way more comfortable with poor young people being pressured to become volunteers than to become soldiers.