February 20, 2008
Volunteer service is beneficial
I’m writing in response to Mitchell Willcox’s argument against mandatory national service. I’ll start by saying that I agree with Mr. Willcox’s position: mandatory national service is indeed untenable; neither the social nor political will exists to create and run such a program.
Yet I would argue forcefully that national service is neither a burden on our young people nor is it an economic drain on the nation, as Mr. Willcox asserts. Non-mandatory (the operative word being “non”) national service not only strengthens the United States economy, it also improves the quality of life for everyone involved.
Briefly: in terms of economic impact, not only do national service volunteers deliver measurable results at a fraction of the cost — so many more children who can read at a certain grade level, so many houses rebuilt in New Orleans — but they also capture other resources (volunteers and donations, for example) for little to no financial investment, which is a significant economic benefit. As for quality of life, whether it be organizing after school programs in Kalispell or rebuilding after Katrina, the work national service members participate in is, by definition, geared toward improving the lives of communities and individuals. In addition to these measurable assets are the less-quantitative benefits, notably the sense of “civic duty” and “spirit of community”; these results, though unseen, are nonetheless consequential in the impact they have on every individual who serves.
I believe strongly in the power of national service to affect positive change and so would be remiss if I didn’t offer alternatives to Mr. Willcox’s position. First, I strongly encourage anyone interested in national service to contact the civic service organizations on campus, specifically the Montana Campus Compact, the Office for Civic Engagement or the Peace Corps representative, to name a few.1 These are well established programs that are always looking for individuals to engage in life-changing service in Montana and around the world.
Secondly, I’ll mention the National Service American Dream Account (NSADA). The entire proposal is too lengthy to unravel here and so I’ll direct curious individuals to The American Interest (Vol. III, No. 3)2 for a more in-depth understanding of the NSADA. I’ve laid out the main points below.
The American Dream Account encourages Americans to give a year of their lives to national service without making it mandatory, while simultaneously compensating them with a base amount of $18,000 at the end of their term. Here’s how it works: the Government seeds $5,000 in the American Dream Account for each child born in the US; when that child reaches the age of 18, they are then eligible to receive the money (which by then has matured to the aforementioned $18,000) after they spend a year in public service.
There are of course other provisions – the money is restricted to certain uses; individuals must choose to serve by age 28 or forfeit the money back into the account — and as with any large-scale plan, there would be kinks to be worked out. Yet the NSADA, at least in theory, alleviates Mr. Willcox’s prime concern: that the Government would force citizens into national service. The beauty of the NSADA is that it remains non-mandatory yet sufficiently attractive to engage individuals who may not otherwise have considered national service.
My hope, as someone currently engaged in national service, is that the promise of financial reward will get people in the door, but that the true benefit will be the joy found in a lifetime of service.
Graham Murtaugh is a Montana Campus Compact AmeriCorps VISTA*Leader.
The Montana Campus Compact: 243-5427
The Office for Civic Engagement: 243-5531
Campus Peace Corps Office: 243-2839
2You can Google “National Service American Dream Account” or find the article at: http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=372&MId=17
