Mandatory Volunteerism National Service Bill

On March 24, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
Next, the bill is headed to the U.S. Senate for debate.

The stated purpose of the GIVE Act, as found in Section 1101, is basically to encourage volunteerism in American communities. The language in the bill is filled with terms like "volunteer", "opportunities" and "communities" which all sound good. I'm not sure I know anyone who has a problem with encouraging people to become more involved within their local communities. What does present a problem to many is another apparently un-repealable law: the law of unintended consequences.

We all know which road is paved with good intentions. This long-standing saying still proves itself today. That is why certain portions of the GIVE Act have generated controversy. Some selections of this bill are reproduced below:


SEC. 1203. INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH
amending the following:

SEC. 120. INNOVATIVE DEMONSTRATION SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH

‘(3) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE PROGRAM- The term ‘youth engagement zone program’ means a service learning program in which members of an eligible partnership described in paragraph (4) collaborate to provide coordinated school-based or community-based service learning opportunities, to address a specific community challenge, for an increasing percentage of out-of-school youth and secondary school students served by local educational agencies where--

‘(A) not less than 90 percent of the students participate in service-learning activities as part of the program; or

‘(B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
amending the following:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

‘(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

‘(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

‘(8) Providing a direct benefit to--

‘(A) a business organized for profit;

...

‘(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.

With this language, the GIVE Act could be interpreted to mean middle school and high school student participation in these national service programs is mandatory. Also, students in these government programs are forbidden from practicing religion, getting involved with other private non-profit groups, or perhaps even getting a job with a normal business, nor can they voice objection to anything the government is doing. An alternative interpretation is that students who practice religion may be ineligible for programs in the GIVE Act or any number of other government benefits, but this could amount to religious discrimination.

I can't say what the likelihood is of these interpretations becoming reality. I can say I would feel better about it if such language were edited to alleviate my concerns. As it is presently written, I cannot support this bill, and would encourage anyone reading this blog to contact your Senators to voice objection to the selected portions of it. It is very likely some changes in the bill will be made in the Senate version, but that is no guarantee the sections printed above will be altered.

The question of whether the federal government should be involved at all at this level in our lives is a different matter altogether. I would encourage you to read the bill, though it is dry and quite long for what I would consider normal reading. That fact alone is also a problem for many Americans: that legislation is written in such a way as to discourage ordinary citizens from being well informed. That is one reason why this post provides information that is new for some of you.

In the United States, mandatory military service was stopped because of objections voiced by the public. Such objections typically suggested compulsory service conflicted with the founding premises of a free society. Regardless of one's opinion on the matter, our federal government accepted this argument, and so required enlistment ended. Ending mandatory military service established the precedent that our government cannot force us into government service. I must conclude that, likewise, compulsory service in the government programs pertaining to the GIVE Act, even for the noble goal of building community, should also be opposed. If you agree, please voice your objections publicly beginning with your Senators, and pass this message along to others.

H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act

Mindless Compassion

feelgoodism - n - an act motivated by compassion without regard to the help or harm to others that results; an act designed to make one feel good about oneself.

The dominant view in our western culture seems to be that fairness and compassion are among the ultimate virtues, and that freedom to make one's own decisions is not. In this view, any act allegedly intended to help people is given instant credibility while the results of such acts are marginalized or simply ignored. What matters is not results, but only the goal. When the goal is an egalitarian society, anything that brings our culture closer to that end can be justified. Any damage done to society by efforts to increase equality and fairness must be disregarded, or blamed on something else. The results of such mindless compassion are sometimes acknowledged but deliberately misrepresented. Poverty in Africa is a good example.

Myth: more money always solves problems

Spiegel Online Internation published the interivew "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!" with James Shikwati in July 2005. The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

Through out the article the Der Spiegel interviewer just can't seem to accept the notion that good intentions could ever cause harm. The interviewer reflects a common sentiment among those in power today: the desire to do good outweighs the reality of the situation. Feelgoodism trumps the reality that great harm is being caused by aid policies. Another piece by James Shikwati explains in clear, logical, common sense terms how to fix the problem of grinding poverty in Africa. But feelgoodism trumps common sense, blinds the do-gooder, and often hurts more than it helps.

In what other areas do we see "more money" proposed as the solution to society's problems? Education, social welfare, government interference in the financial sector (including the bailout bill), and more. And do the results of this influx of funding match what we were told by the do-gooders to expect? Of course not!

In the 1970s the brilliant economist Milton Friedman narrated a TV miniseries titled The Power of the Market. Below is a ten minute segment on the results of welfare:



The war on poverty ironically is a war on prosperity. Ending poverty is not the goal of this war. It is about redistribution of wealth. Socialism is about the equal distribution of misery, not the elimination of it. No capitalist is pretending life can be made fair or that misery can be eradicated, but such things can be diminished. Political, religious, economic liberty and good laws are the main ingredients of this endeavor. Prosperity is the essential element of a successful economy. But prosperity must grow to exist. How does prosperity grow when those who earn or generate wealth discover they do not get to keep what they earn? How does making it impossible for a people (Africans) to become self-sufficient bring them out of poverty?

In our own nation we might ask if helping the poor is truly the goal of social aid why not exempt the poor from paying income taxes? Then again, one might ask, how does taxing income promote prosperity?

But feelgoodism isn't about common sense. It isn't about results. It isn't about asking questions or finding solutions. Feelgoodism works on the naive presumption that no harm can result from good intentions. It is about intentions. It is about getting credit for being compassionate. What "works" is defined by the degree of economic equality, not by the number of people rescued from poverty. If people are actually helped by these intentions, well that's good.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

-- William J. H. Boetcker