We have been talking about the same problems for years. While leaders talk kids grow up within the existing system. They will be left with the  national debt long after the talkers are gone.

At the outset let me tell you about the problems we foresee in implementing the Volunteer Corps and suggest a way to solve them—nationwide.

People have become cynical—especially kids. They assume adults only do things for money. They don't believe anyone cares enough about anything to give selflessly. Leaders share the cynicism.

The government has become paternalistic—leaders believe their job is to make grants—to enable the do-gooders.

If grants were available why would anyone want to participate in new programs without funding? Why pass up free money?

• How many people have a vested interest in keeping grant money flowing?
• How many consultants, non-profits and government employees make their livelihoods running volunteer  programs?

After all, money makes almost everything easier, except getting the trust and cooperation of those people the programs are intended to reach. There is no incentive anywhere in the nation to save the government money with freely given, non-compensated time, energy and goods. That is the true meaning of the word volunteer. If a community were to turn down federal and state subsidies the government or non-profit dollars would be distributed to other cities.

The result is three things we don't want:

• less successful programs because participants don't respond because they don't believe the so-called volunteers  really care;
• an increase in the national debt because grant money is needed elsewhere to pay the interest on past spending—-cutting annual deficits doesn't begin to solve the financial calamity awaiting today's school children;
• no outlet for those who care enough to give freely but would be chumps not to take money offered by the government

We can reverse the three outcomes above by changing the incentives. What if we allowed communities who decided to take local responsibility for their social problems to use the federal subsidies for projects agreed upon the volunteers whose labor made the choice possible? Suppose these communities voted to use these savings to ensure that every young volunteer would have access to a college education.  Volunteers might vote to start a new cooperatively owned industry, a needed public facility, low-cost high quality child-care and/or health-care, more police or fire personnel, beautification and so forth.

The point is, those who join would be rewarded by the good feeling that comes from giving wholeheartedly for a community and national purpose greater than themselves and without becoming a chump in the process. As for those who now live off grants, there could be a gradual transition into the private sector—no one would be immediately displaced by this proposal.

[Home] [Main Menu] [Archives] [Another Way Menu]