“How is it wrong when Obama proposes national service, but right when our presidential candidate did it?”
McCain has a plan for national service? That’s news to me. Saying that people should consider helping others through the already existing religious and secular institutions isn’t a “plan” in any meaningful sense of the word.
Therein lies the difference between the two.
Spitzer at volokh.com writes:
“The difference between the McCain and Obama proposals is simple: McCain’s service is voluntary and uncontrolled/undirected by the government, whereas Obama’s is compulsory (in effect) and subject to the control or direction of the government. The former type of service may strengthen communities but does not aggrandize the government, whereas the latter empowers the government without necessarily helping the community. Put another way, one talks about Burke’s “little platoons” while the other emulates the work gangs and political action youth committees more commonly found in totalitarian societies.”
The Federal Government is BROKE. They have more programs than they can afford. Obama is proposing more and more programs, but the money doesn’t exist to pay for them. What about the issues of millions of very part-time volunteers and the supervision they would require? And the paperwork necessary to track it—from schools that can barely meet the no-child-left behind requirements? And the additional employees needed to track it all?
I strongly suggest you take a moment and read what Senator McCain wrote in 2001. It was not secular. It was not religious. It was largely an expansion of AmeriCorps, a federal program.
McCain's plan was not voluntary.
Senator McCain wrote: If we are to have a resurgence of patriotic service in this country, then programs like AmeriCorps must be expanded and changed in ways that inspire the nation. There should be more focus on meeting national goals and on making short-term service, both civilian and military, a rite of passage for young Americans.
Also:
For example, an important responsibility of our armed services is peacekeeping around the world. Often, this involves non-military activities such as constabulary work. The military should explore whether short-term enlistees could fulfill these responsibilities, freeing other personnel to perform more traditional military duties.
I don't know about you, but when I volunteer, I can walk away from it anytime I like. No one walks away from being "enlisted", the word Senator McCain used. "Rites of passage" are what everyone in a given group does. It wouldn't be a rite of passage otherwise.
The Federal Government is BROKE. They have more programs than they can afford. Obama is proposing more and more programs, but the money doesn’t exist to pay for them. What about the issues of millions of very part-time volunteers and the supervision they would require? And the paperwork necessary to track it—from schools that can barely meet the no-child-left behind requirements? And the additional employees needed to track it all?
Don't blame me. I did not support Senator McCain and did not vote for him. I was well aware of all this before he ran for the presidency this time and do not support anyone who wants to conscript American youth. I'm simply shocked at everyone who did support McCain and his policies and now don't like it when Obama suggests the exact same policies.
The Federal government is broke? It's been broke for a while. That doesn't change the fact that Senator McCain's article was written four years before Barack Obama was elected to Congress. That doesn't change the fact that McCain's article focuses on how Americorps doesn't do enough because it isn't large enough and relied solely on volunteers.