Object to mandated, taxpayer funded, Universal Service? You’re “ideologically sclerotic”
Posted by danishova on March 19, 2009
House Passes Volunteerism Bill Critics Call Pricey, Forced Service
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives passed a measure Wednesday that supporters are calling the most sweeping reform of nationally-backed volunteer programs since AmeriCorps. But some opponents are strongly criticizing the legislation, calling it expensive indoctrination and forced advocacy.
Yep, that would be me.
The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 "new service opportunities" under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional "corps" to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation.
OOPS, I was off by a billion here. Tragically, I’m like a lone wolf, which I guess makes me an endangered species:
But the bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young "volunteers," many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a "Congressional Commission on Civic Service."
This is where I begin to really freak out:
The bipartisan commission will be tasked with exploring a number of topics, including "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation."
The social fabric of this nation is fine, thank you very much. It’s the social fabric of Chicago Leftists and lowlifes that needs mending. Or, to put it another way:
F*$# YOU Barack! And the horses’ asses you rode in on!
Sorry. I’ll try to keep my composure. I hear a fellow lone wolf howling:
"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."
The predators emerge from their congressional cave:
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.
I need a drink or something. Hold on…
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.
Allow me to high five you on that one, Sir (seeing as it’s March Madness and all).
"I think this is a problem that is rife throughout the federal government. When you dramatically expand the program, then you dramatically expand the ability for these left-wing advocacy organizations to get more funding. I don’t see a lot of attention being paid to that, even from those who are critical. That’s where the focus should be. Republicans tend to say its not that they oppose the program, they just want to spend less money. It’s the program that’s bad."
Wake up “Republicans”! Did you bother to read the bill? Or are you so lured by the siren call of “volunteerism” that you don’t understand the threat to our liberty?
Aides to Miller [ed:
Education CommitteeIndoctrination Committee Chair] say they are awaiting estimates from the Congressional Budget Office on how much the GIVE Act would ultimately cost…
Really? Since when does this Democrat Congress listen to the Congressional Budget Office? Didn’t the C.B.O. warn you that the Stimulus Bill would harm the economy by accumulating debt?
"The millions of Americans who volunteered in 2007 generated benefits worth $158 billion," Racusen said. "A cost-benefit analysis of AmeriCorps, for example, shows that every dollar invested in the programs yields almost $4 in direct, measurable benefits. Investing in service helps low-income students achieve in school, prepares future workers for green jobs, provides assistance to veterans returning from war, and rebuilds homes and communities after disasters."
That’s a fine demonstration of Mad Communist Math skillz there, Comrade Racusen.
But some critics on the right suggest that the president’s push for national service goes too far, and the recent congressional steps toward expanding the federal role in volunteerism and "civilian service" smacks of a larger agenda. They point to a campaign speech the president made last July in which he suggested national security could be entrusted to a civilian force.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded," Obama, who worked as a community organizer in Chicago early in his career, said during a Colorado Springs rally.
Danger, Will Robinson!
"This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up," Obama said in the speech.
How very Mao of you, Barack. I don’t call your economic policies Obamaoism for nothing.
"Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda," Lee Cary of the conservative American Thinker wrote at the time about Obama’s remarks.
"(His words) were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer’s sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers," Cary wrote.
Right on, right on. I called it a “glorious soup kitchen”, but “giant community organizer’s sandbox” works too.
Supporters say critics are a minority who prefer to agitate than assist.
Unlike, say ACORN agitators??? How about this?: WE PREFER TO AGITATE FOR LIBERTY. The finale:
"Resistance to expanded public service programs can be expected from the ideologically sclerotic, those who occupy the negative ground between government as the problem and government as our enemy," former Democratic Colorado Sen. Gary Hart wrote in a recent op-ed on the Huffington Post Web site.
As opposed to the positive ground where government is the problem and government is our enemy?
The Senate is mulling over a similar piece of legislation, the "Serve America Act," sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. It was given a special endorsement by the president in his address before Congress on Feb. 24.
Orrin Hatch, it’s time to retire. You too Teddy.