|
National
Service is one
of the
hottest causes
of presidential
candidates. Both
Barack Obama
and John McCain
are gung-ho for
expanding
Americorps to
hire a quarter
million people
to perform
federally-orchestrated
good deeds.
Former
presidential
candidate
Senator Chris
Dodd wanted to
make community
service
mandatory for
high school
students and
boost AmeriCorps
to a million
members. John
Edwards also
favored making
national service
mandatory.
But does
America have a
shortage of
government
workers?
AmeriCorps
is the epitome
of contemporary
federal good
intentions.
AmeriCorps,
which currently
has roughly
75,000 paid
recruits, has
been very
popular in
Washington in
part because it
puts a smiley
face on Uncle
Sam at a time
when many
government
policies are
deeply
unpopular.
AmeriCorps
has consumed
more than $4
billion in tax
dollars since
its creation in
1993. During the
Clinton
administration,
AmeriCorps
members helped
run a program in
Buffalo that
gave children $5
for each toy gun
they brought in
-- as well as a
certificate
praising their
decision not to
play with toy
guns. In San
Diego,
AmeriCorps
members busied
themselves
collecting used
bras and panties
for a homeless
shelter. In Los
Angeles, AmeriCorps
members busied
themselves
foisting
unreliable
ultra-low-flush
toilets on poor
people. In New
Jersey,
AmeriCorps
members enticed
middle-class
families to
accept
subsidized
federal health
insurance for
their children.
President
George W. Bush
was a vigorous
supporter of
AmeriCorps in
his 2000
campaign, and
many Republicans
expected that
his team would
make the program
a pride to the
nation. But the
program is still
an
administrative
train wreck. In
2002, it
illegally spent
more than $64
million than
Congress
appropriated –
and yet was
rewarded with a
higher budget.
Bush’s
first AmeriCorps
chief, Leslie
Lenkowsky,
started out as a
visionary
idealist who
promised great
things from the
federal
program. But,
when he resigned
in 2003,
Lenkowsky
conceded that
AmeriCorps is
just “another
cumbersome,
unpredictable
government
bureaucracy.”
Though
AmeriCorps
abounds in “feel
good” projects,
it has never
provided
credible
evidence of
benefit to the
United States.
Instead, it
relies on Soviet
bloc-style
accounting --
merely counting
labor inputs and
pretending that
the raw numbers
prove grandiose
achievements.
The Office of
Management and
Budget concluded
in 2003 that
“AmeriCorps has
not been able to
demonstrate
results. Its
current focus is
on the amount of
time a person
serves, as
opposed to the
impact on the
community or
participants.”
The General
Accounting
Office noted
that AmeriCorps
“generally
reports the
results of its
programs and
activities by
quantifying the
amount of
services
AmeriCorps
participants
perform.” GAO
criticized
AmeriCorps for
failing to make
any effort to
measure the
actual effect of
its members’
actions.
Most
AmeriCorps
success claims
have no more
credibility than
a political
campaign
speech. The
vast majority of
AmeriCorps
programs are
"self-evaluated”:
the only
evidence
AmeriCorps
possesses of
what a program
achieved is what
the grant
recipients
claim. One of
the agency’s
consultants
encouraged
AmeriCorps
programs to
inflate the
number of
claimed
beneficiaries:
“If you feel
your program
affects a broad
group of
individuals who
may not be
receiving
personal
services from
members... then
list the whole
community.”
The
advocates of a
vast national
service program
assume that
there are
legions of unmet
needs that the
new government
workers could
perform. But
the reason such
needs are
currently unmet
is that
politicians have
either
considered them
not part of
government’s
obligation or
because meeting
the need is not
considered worth
the cost to
taxpayers.
There are
hundreds of
thousands of
government
agencies across
the land,
counting
federal, state,
and local
governments.
There are
already more
than 20 million
people working
for government
in this
country. Yet
national service
advocates talk
as if the public
sector is
starved of
resources.
National
Service programs
are more
profitable for
politicians than
for citizens.
USA Today
noted in 1998
that AmeriCorps’
"T-shirted
brigade is most
well known
nationally as
the youthful
backdrop for
White House
photo ops."
President Bush
politically
exploited
AmeriCorps
members almost
as often as did
Clinton.
Some
congressmen also
profiteer off
AmeriCorps’
image. After
some congressmen
showed up one
day in March
2004 to hammer
some nails at a
Habitat for
Humanity
house-building
project in
Washington, AmeriCorps
issued a press
release hyping
their
participation in
the good deed.
The press
release named
eight members of
Congress and
noted, “Working
alongside the
elected
officials were
two dozen
AmeriCorps
members from the
D.C. chapter of
Habitat for
Humanity and
AmeriCorps.” The
home they helped
build was to be
given to a
single mother of
three. Photos
from the
appearance could
add flourishes
to newsletters
to constituents
or for
reelection
campaigns.
Congressmen also
benefit when
they announce
AmeriCorps
grants to
organizations in
their districts.
Some
national service
advocates insist
that AmeriCorps’
failings should
not be held
against
proposals to
expand the
federal role in
service because
their preferred
program would
leave it up to
communities to
decide how to
use the new
“volunteers.”
But if
programs are not
centrally
controlled,
local
“initiatives”
will soon
transform it
into a national
laughingstock.
This happened
with CETA, a
make-work
program that was
expanded to its
doom under
President
Carter. CETA
bankrolled such
job-creating
activities as
building an
artificial rock
in Oregon for
rock climbers to
practice on,
conducting a
nude sculpture
class in Miami
where aspiring
artists
practiced
Braille reading
on each other,
and sending CETA
workers
door-to-door in
Florida to
recruit people
for food stamps.
More
than 60 million
Americans work
as unpaid
volunteers each
year. Even if
AmeriCorps was
expanded to a
quarter million
recruits, it
would amount to
less than one
half of one
percent of the
total of people
who donate their
time for what
they consider
good causes.
And there is no
reason to assume
that paying
“volunteers”
multiplies
productivity.
Rather
than expanding
national service
programs,
Congress should
pull the plug on
AmeriCorps. At
a time of
soaring
deficits, the
federal
government can
no longer afford
to spend half a
billion dollars
a year on a
bogus volunteer
program whose
results have
been AWOL since
the last
century.
--###--
James Bovard is
the author of
Attention
Deficit
Democracy
(Palgrave,
2006), Feeling
Your Pain (St.
Martin’s 2000),
Lost Rights (St.
Martin’s, 1994),
and other books.
|
