AmeriCorps Being Reduced

Stories abound in newspapers around the country about the anticipated cuts in the AmeriCorps Program budget. Among them, Jim Carney wrote this story for the Akron Beacon Journal which details how the budget cuts will affect the program locally. As with cuts associated with any government program, the report provides a number of sad anecdotes of what's going to happen. Examples are:

A) 5,850 fewer students will be tutored.

B) 5,025 fewer Ohio children and adults will receive immunization and health screenings.

C) 191 fewer housing units will be built, remodeled or repaired.

And, inexplicable to anyone that uses a dictionary to define words,

D) 4,950 fewer community volunteers will be recruited by AmeriCorps volunteers.

So, you tell me. What's stopping them? Why can't an AmeriCorps volunteer continue to recruit community volunteers? I really am hard pressed to be able to think of anything that prohibits a person from doing volunteer work.

Ah, but there's a caveat. It seems that AmeriCorps "volunteers" are not volunteers at all. They are paid employees of the government. They receive $9,500 yearly stipend (which is pay), a $4,725 educational award (which is pay also) and health coverage (which is a job benefit). I'm not familiar with how the funds are classified when disbursed but I have the feeling that not much is deducted for taxes, social security, workman's compensation, etc.

Basic arithmetic produces a total of $14,225 per person yearly, not including benefits. This does not, in my opinion, meet the definition of volunteer work. Consequently, the "605 full-time AmeriCorps members" of the Ohio Community Service Council would therefore cost the taxpayers over $8.5 million for the 2002-2003 fiscal year.

For the sake of comparison, a person flipping burgers or working retail full-time for $7 per hour would make approximately $14,000 in a year. Chances are that person wouldn't have health insurance and would be subject to every bit of withholding the government allows.

Sure seems to me that being an AmeriCorps "volunteer" can be somewhat more lucrative than being a regular worker with a regular job.

Now, I don't have anything against AmeriCorps per se, but I do favor spending cuts whenever possible. And, although I haven't analyzed the performance of the program, I would surmise that considerable benefit has been derived. I assume that any area that has millions of dollars allocated to it would show progress.

But I do have a problem with it being called a "volunteer" program. It is just a government jobs program instituted by the Democratic Clinton administration and consistent with the philosophy of President Johnson's Great Society.

Lastly, I've a big problem with the redefining of the word "volunteer." It demeans the entire concept of volunteerism - to give of oneself without reward. I think it insults all those that do real volunteer work.