So much for the new era of fiscal responsibility. The federal government’s dependency drones have been spared the chopping block. After vowing to eliminate funding for President Obama’s bloated $6 billion AmeriCorps social-justice army, House Republicans retreated — and will shrink the AmeriCorps budget by a minuscule 6.7 percent.
Politicians originally sold AmeriCorps as an alternative to big government — a program to “renew the ethic of civic responsibility and the spirit of community throughout the United States.” With bipartisan support, the program has morphed into an all-purpose progressive slush fund. Instead of reining in the national-service boondoggle, Washington has turned taxpayer-subsidized helping hands into a legion of Nanny State handout helpers. Goodbye, AmeriCorps. Hello, FoodStampCorps.
Advertisement
Yes, across the Internet, the feds are recruiting AmeriCorps VISTA (“Volunteers in Service to America”) workers to apply for jobs as publicists for the welfare state. Their mission: to sign up as many people to federal food-stamp rolls as possible. Because, you know, the record-breaking 12 million that have been added since Obama took office is apparently not good enough.
Here’s a typical job ad in Boston:
AMERICORPS VISTA: FOOD STAMP COORDINATOR (INTERNSHIP) Through this project, the Elderly Commission will be able to provide information, assistance and support to senior citizens of Boston in applying for food stamps. Develop a full knowledge of the Food Stamp program and application process. Assist seniors in senior housing and community centers to fill out Food Stamp applications; assist seniors with gathering necessary proofs together for applications; follow up with the Department of Transitional Assistance to ensure seniors receive awarded benefits. Recruit volunteers to be trained on the application of the Food Stamp program.
In New York, Philadelphia, and a total of 30 sites across the country, AmeriCorps and the Department of Agriculture are funding the “National Anti-Hunger and Opportunity Corps” to “increase access to food stamps.”
National Affairs managing editor Meghan Clyne reports that the administration is roping in left-wing churches to aggressively promote food stamps. With institutional support from first lady Michelle Obama, the FoodStampCorps will train church members to apply for food stamps after religious services and
“encourage eligible families to enroll their children in (government-subsidized) school meal programs”; if organizations operate day-care or after-school programs, they are advised to pursue reimbursement for meals and snacks through the Child and Adult Care Food Program (a federally funded, state-administered welfare program). Places of worship are asked to serve as feeding sites for the Summer Food Service Program — another federally funded, state-run welfare project.
With billions poured into the welfare state at the local, state, and national levels and enrollment at an all-time high, why should taxpayers be underwriting make-work jobs for Democratic flacks-in-training? Shouldn’t it already be the job of the vast network of existing social-services and welfare agencies to publicize the program and assist food-stamp applicants?
Jeez, that's really awful that we have people out there trying to get people who lack food signed up for food stamps. Simply disgusting how our tax dollars are wasted helping the poor have basic sustenance.
I think Michelle Malkin is the Andy Kaufman of right-wing commentators.
Michelle Malkin places politics over facts to slam an innovative public/private, faith-based/secular partnership that is effectively fighting domestic hunger across the United States.
Malkin purposely omits key facts that would help the public understand that many components of both the AmeriCorps Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – the current name for what used to be called the Food Stamp Program – advance conservative principles.
Let’s start with the idea of national service, which engages Americans in domestic community service, usually through non-governmental nonprofit groups. Participants receive a small living stipend, but don’t receive a penny unless they work hard. If they successfully complete a full term of service, they receive an educational scholarship, but again, only if they do the work and do it well. It is no wonder then that, in the late 1980’s, when the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute (two organizations generally affiliated with the conservative/moderate wing of the Democratic Party and for whom I worked) proposed the idea that would become AmeriCorps, it was traditional liberals who were the staunchest opponents of the program, saying it was wrong to tie government benefits to work requirements.
In 1990,no less than esteemed National review founder William F. Buckley, the founder of the National Review, wrote an entire book (Gratitude: Reflections on What We Owe to Our Country) promoting a government-funded system of national service, in which most of the money would be controlled by the states and participants would be provided a small living allowance. That’s exactly how AmeriCorps works today. Buckley went as far as to say that Americans who chose not to give back to their country by serving in such a program would be “contemptuous of their heritage and ungrateful.” He predicted that most conservatives would eventually embrace the idea because a “natural conservative sense of duty and of reverence for tradition will gradually win over most conservatives.”
It is ironic indeed that an idea championed by conservatives and derided by liberals is now lambasted as some sort of so-called example of liberalism run amuck.
In reality, most AmeriCorps funding decisions are made by states. Conservatives who are consistent about supporting federalism should embrace this program. All AmeriCorps benefits are made contingent upon work. Conservatives who are consistent in their claim that work should be the centerpiece of social policy should herald AmeriCorps as a best practice.
The most egregious misinformation in the Malkin piece is her implication that the national AmeriCorps benefits outreach program she is slamming is managed directly by the federal government and funded only by the federal government. It is not. In fact, it is run by the organization I manage, the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, a 501(c)3 nonprofit group, in conjunction with nonprofit groups and faith-based organizations around the country. (For the record, I am writing this response using non-governmental funds.) While most of the funding is federal, significant matching funds have been provided by the Walmart Foundation and the Trinity Church Wall Street in New York City. Conservatives who are consistent in their desire to buttress non-government entities should hold up AmeriCorps as a shining example.
Malkin derides religious organizations working with the government on SNAP outreach as “left wing,” but the reality is that our AmeriCorps outreach program is working with mainstream Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish groups . Our partners include the Presbyterian Hunger Program, Baylor University, and the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles. Conservatives who are consistent in their support for faith-based partnerships should run to the hilltops to praise this program.
Moreover, it’s absurd to claim that helping our hungry neighbors, including seniors and children, obtain food is somehow “left wing.” Given that mandates to do so are central commandments of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur’an, I would think that self-proclaimed religious people, such as Malkin, should promote, not deride, such efforts. After all, it was Jesus Christ himself (in Matthew 25) who said that helping the poor and hungry obtain food was just as holy as feeding the Lord.
I must also point out that, in some fundamental ways, the SNAP program is a conservative approach to fighting hunger. SNAP benefits are, first and foremost, wage supports, helping make low-income work a better way to support a family than receiving cash welfare. In fact, people who have left welfare are less likely to return if they receive SNAP. That is why many conservative governors have promoted SNAP access even as they continue to reduce their welfare rolls. Even President George W. Bush’s Administration made it clear that SNAP was a work support, not welfare. In fact, the Bush Administration’s USDA Under Secretary Eric Bost once said, “I assure you, food stamps is not welfare.” Yet because the term “welfare” sounds so much more nefarious than the accurate term “nutrition assistance,” Malkin uses it over and over again to inflame her audience.
SNAP is the ultimate voucher program, allowing families to use government funds to shop at private stores. Unlike truly liberal countries like India or Brazil where government food programs direct low-income families to government-run food warehouses, SNAP is now distributed entirely through the U.S. private enterprise system. Every government dollar spent by taxpayers on SNAP creates 1.8 dollars in private economic activity. Conservatives who are consistent in their support of vouchers should highlight the effectiveness of SNAP.
To be sure, AmeriCorps also bolsters the traditional liberal goals of increasing economic opportunity and expanding educational access. But there is no question that it also supports the traditional conservative goals of rewarding work and strengthening communities.
Likewise, outreach to increase SNAP usage advances the traditional liberal goal of reducing poverty. But there is no doubt that it also reinforces the traditional conservative goal of strengthening families.
If we want to live in a country that exists in a state of perpetual political warfare – in which we automatically denounce anything supported by our political opponents – then it makes sense for some people to reflexively oppose AmeriCorps and SNAP just because their opponents support them.
But if we want to live in country where Americans come together to solve major problems based on shared values – as the vast majority of Americans do – then we should all embrace efforts such as AmeriCorps. Our national service program, fighting hunger with a mix of federal and private funds, working with both secular and religious non-profit groups, represents the best of middle-of-the road American tradition. It deserves all Americans’ consistent support.
Insisting people take gov't benefits they qualify for isn't a bad thing. They'll learn how low the bar for benefits is set.
Also, the Americorps people earn VERY little, less than minimum wage. So not that expensive.
And finally, you're not correct on Democrats in training. Americorps helps both the needed and greedy. The single Americorps person I knew became a republican based on her experience.
@Joel Berg: So, you get paid by the word? I would have thought being frugal with the "non-governmental funds" you collected for writing that post would be higher on your to-do list, but maybe the air is purer up there where you are than down here with us grubby taxpayers.
I'd be more susceptible to your arguments if groups such as yours did not approach their good works with politics as the motivating factor, flavored with a whiff of condescension.
If the government didn't have its hands so deep in my pockets to fund groups like yours, I wouldn't have had to cut my charitable contributions this year.
What happened to permit the government mixing it up with religious organizations? I thought good Libs shunned religion but now they are permitted to use them to acquire the new needy?
JoelBurg we have charitable groups in my state that help the unfortunate that do not rely on Fed or State money, it is given by the charitable people of this state.
Publius is correct - this is Cloward-Piven at work. With only 46% of the population with jobs, soon there will be no one to supply the freebies.
Food stamps and public assistance in general was created to help the truly needy in our society. And make no mistake, there are truly needy today.
But "..bring your screenplay, your ipod..."?
Like most programs provided by the federal govt; out current food stamp program is rift with waste and fraud. This is why we need the federal govt to take control of its spending, eliminate waste and fraud, and operate more efficiently before we even think about raising taxes...
It isn't a matter of whether this or that program can be justified based on some real, inflated or imaginary exigency. There are, and always will be, people who are in need of a safety net and there is nothing wrong with the government being in position to provide it.
The problem is that the government is no longer in the "safety net" business but in the "depend on us" business.
Bottom line, human beings are meant to be productive. A philosophy of government that reinforces not being productive is a philosophy that degrades our people. It has led to creation of a permanent underclass in black America (all in the name of combating racism, of course). We must aim for a society that puts people to work and opens the doors for economic opportunity, not a society that intentionally keeps people on the dole. That society does not care for its citizens, it oppresses them in the name of kindness.
