I just wrote my representatives in support of H.R. 1388 and I encourage you to do the same. Here's how congress.com describes the bill:
Following President Barack Obama's call for more volunteerism and public service, Congress is considering a bill this week that would encourage national service. H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act, would more than triple the number of positions in the Americorps program, from 75,000 to 250,000, and would increase educational stipends and other financial awards for people of all generations who enter public service programs.
Here's what I wrote:
I volunteered in AmeriCorps in summer 2008 in the Montana Conservation Corps. It helped me improve my character, stewardship of the environment, and thoughtfulness regarding potential areas of community development.
I spent my earnings and educational award on higher education at the University of Montana and now I'm pursuing a few projects, namely one that would help stimulate household organic vegetable gardens in Missoula. This character-building experience with the AmeriCorps was instrumental in my personal progression and the progression of some of the corps-members I met.
I think this federal program should be expanded and well-funded. Civic duty and service to one's local environment and economy is such a fundamental element of this country. Looking forward, I believe service (getting out into neighborhoods and doing public work) will teach us the lessons we need to pull ourselves out of the recession/depression panic; the lesson of mutual self-interest.
I would like to see my federal taxes go towards the continuation and expansion of the Americorps Program.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| crew2.jpg | 70.59 KB |
I appreciate your service and I appreciate that you made the choice to perform those duties. However, I must ask, if this bill enforces the fact that people must "volunteer" for AmeriCorps or similar groups is that ok?
There were restrictions placed on people in the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s and 40s, not to mention participants were required to send a portion of their earnings back home to families in order to jumpstart the economy.
And yet, this program of the federal government is looked at largely in a good light. It was a powerful statement and the work that many young men did improved their lives (gave them work and recreation and an improved environment to live in) and those of relatives back home.
If we require service and give participants choices of service (ie. military, PeaceCorps, local public works programs like urban gardening programs etc.) in their communities, why wouldn't this be a swell idea?
Is the purpose of life to be connected to freedom of pursuit at all times or is the purpose of life happiness or usefulness? I submit that happiness and freedom are not one in the same.
my documentary...
"some folks say that a hippie won't steal,
but I caught three in my corn field"
--John Hartford
If we require service .... why wouldn't this be a swell idea?
Maybe because compulsory service has the stench of slavery? It is antithetical to a free society.
I have no problem encouraging volunteerism but when people are FORCED to serve they are not really volunteering are they? They are forced to spend a period of their lives as slaves of the government.
I really don't mind public service being the price of earning certain privileges. For example I think it would be fine to tie public funded scholarships to service. Perhaps nobody who chose not to serve should be eligible for the welfare safety net. I would not even mind if the voting franchise was earned through public service. (This idea was thoroughly explored in Robert Heinlein's book, Starship Troopers and seemed like a great idea to me.) But ultimately, volunteering should be voluntary. People should be free not to serve and should know that there are consequences in terms of lost privileges that accompany this freely made choice.