“to Serve America...it’s a Cookbook!!!!”

The GIVE legislation also contains language that could completely demolish the 1st amendment.


To GIVE and To SERVE: The $6 Billion National Service Boondoggle

Townhall.com  | http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/03/25/to_give_and_to_serve_the_$6_billion_national_service_boondoggle

March 25, 25, 2009 | Michelle Malkin

Maybe it's just me, but I find federal legislation titled "The GIVE Act" and "The SERVE Act" downright creepy. Even more troubling: the $6 billion price tag on these bipartisan bills to expand government-funded national service efforts.

Volunteerism is a wonderful thing, which is why millions of Americans do it every day without a cent of taxpayer money. But the volunteerism packages on the Hill are less about promoting effective charity than about creating make-work, permanent bureaucracies and left-wing slush funds.

The House passed the "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act" -- or the GIVE Act -- last week. The Senate took up the companion SERVE Act Tuesday afternoon. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate bill (S.277), it would cost "$418 million in 2010 and about $5.7 billion over the 2010-2014 period."

Like most federal programs, these would be sure to grow over time. The bills reauthorize the Clinton-era AmeriCorps boondoggle program and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973.

The programs have already been allocated $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2009, including $200 million from the porkulus package signed into law last month. In addition to recruiting up to 250,000 enrollees in AmeriCorps, the GIVE/SERVE bills would create new little armies of government volunteers, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps, Veterans Service Corps, and an expanded National Civilian Community Corps for disaster relief and energy conservation.

But that's not all. Spending would include new funds for:

-- Foster Grandparent Program ($115 million);

-- Learn and Serve America ($97 million);

-- Retired and Senior Volunteer Program ($70 million);

-- Senior Companion Program ($55 million);

-- $12 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for "the Silver Scholarships and Encore Fellowships programs";

-- $10 million a year from 2010 through 2014 for a new "Volunteers for Prosperity" program at USAID to "award grants to fund opportunities for volunteering internationally in coordination with eligible organizations"; and

-- Social Innovation Fund and Volunteer Generation Fund -- $50 million in 2010; $60 million in 2011; $70 million in 2012; $80 million in 2013; and $100 million in 2014.

Social Innovation Fund? If that sounds familiar, it should. I reported last fall on the Democratic Party platform's push to fund a "Social Investment Fund Network" that would reward "social entrepreneurs and leading nonprofit organizations" and "support results-oriented innovators." It is essentially a special taxpayer-funded pipeline for radical liberal groups backed by billionaire George Soros that masquerade as public-interest do-gooders.

Especially troublesome to parents' groups concerned about compulsory volunteerism requirements is a provision in the House version directing Congress to explore "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 and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic and educational backgrounds."

Those who have watched AmeriCorps from its inception are all too familiar with how government volunteerism programs have been used for propaganda and political purposes. AmeriCorps "volunteers" have been put to work lobbying against the voter-approved three-strikes anti-crime initiative in California and protesting Republican political events while working for the already heavily tax-subsidized liberal advocacy group ACORN.

D.C. watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste also documented national service volunteers lobbying for rent control, expanded federal housing subsidies and enrollment of more women in the Women, Infants and Children welfare program. AmeriCorps volunteers have also been paid to shuffle paper at the Department of Justice, the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Legal Services Corporation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

(Now, imagine Obama's troops being sent overseas -- out of sight and unaccountable -- as part of that $10 million a year USAID/Volunteers for Prosperity program. Egad.)

One vigilant House member, GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx, successfully attached an amendment to the GIVE Act to bar National Service participants from engaging in political lobbying; endorsing or opposing legislation; organizing petitions, protests, boycotts or strikes; providing or promoting abortions or referrals; or influencing union organizing.

Supporters of GIVE/SERVE are now fighting those restrictions tooth and nail, screaming censorship and demanding the provisions be dropped -- which tells you everything you need to know about the true nature of this boondoggle. Taxpayers GIVE their money to SERVE a big government agenda under the guise of helping their fellow man. It's charity at the point of a gun.





From the bill:


Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:


(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

(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

(B) a labor organization

(C) a partisan political organization

(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative

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

(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.

(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.


Note that Section 125(a) after “Prohibited Activities” the bill says “A PARTICIPANT (emphasis added) in an approved national service position may not engage in the following activities, etc.”

In other words, the bill does not just prohibit volunteer national service ORGANIZATIONS or UNITS from attempting to influence legislation, taking part in political campaigns or being involved in religious instruction, but tells INDIVIDUALS what they may not do.



The Congressional Budget Office just released the cost estimates for S. 277 Serve America Act.(Senate’s version of HR 1388, Give Act)

CBO estimates S 277 would cost over $6.1 billion dollars over the 2010-2014 period.

Programs funded under National Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (DVSA) received appropriations of $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2009, including $200 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
..otherwise known as the PORKULUS/SPENDULUS Bill that passed that NO ONE in Congress read. Just lovely.

Taxpayers would fund international opportunities too. Volunteering abroad and US worker will pay for it. No problem. See next paragraph.

Finally, S. 277 would authorize the appropriation of $10 million a year through 2014 for a "Volunteers for Prosperity" program at USAID. The program would award grants to fund opportunities for volunteering internationally in coordination with eligible organizations.

CBO estimates that implementing programs with specified authorizations would cost $2.6 billion over the 2010-20 14 period, assuming appropriation of the specified amounts for 2010 and adjusting those amounts in subsequent years for anticipated inflation when no specific authorization exists.??

S. 277 includes annual participation goals similar to HR 1388. 250,000 by 2017.

Click source article link for the full 5-page cost estimate.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbo.gov ... http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10033/s277.pdf





Josie06 Josie06
56-60, F
3 Responses Mar 25, 2009

NoeliaNadie ... Libertarians?<br />
<br />
Are you saying i'm one? The author of the article.<br />
<br />
Are you saying you don't believe or like the article?<br />
<br />
i'm at a loss to understand your comment in relation to the article.

Libertarians are funny.

Volunteerism should be a private matter for each individual and the government should not be involved. As noted above in the article when the government is involved volunteers are used for government things and not for the causes in which the programs were intended.<br />
Many of the programs the government "funds" could still be funded by citizens if they were not having to give "money" to the government to "fund" them. If they are good programs the people will give if they are not they will not. If the government has to fund the programs so that they are there then I have to ask myself "should it be there to begin with".