Americorps Negative PDF

CNDI '06 Lin, Amett, Burshteyn
Ameri Corps Kat/i
A/T Solvency AmeriCorps Ineffective.. .................... . : . ................................................................................ 3 1 AmeriCorps Ineffective.. .....................,..................................................................................3 2 AmeriCorps Volunteers Drop Out/ArelCriminals ...................................................................... JAmeriCorps Makes Things Worse - General .............................................................................. .:i A/T Funding Key .......................................................................................................................... -7 > A/T Funding Key ................................ ................................................................................... 36 A/T Volunteer Spillover I/L ......................................................................................................... -.0 e A/T Recruitment Spillover I/L ............,......................................................................................... 3" Charity Tradeoff Turn ........................................................................................................... ........ 4: Decreases Volunteerism ......................;.................................................................................... 4 1 Decreases Volunteerism ...................... ' .........................................................................................42 Decreases Volunteerism.. .................... I........................................................................................ .43
3 Y 3 .I
'
Off Case Position Spending DA - Cost Links ................. I ......................................................................................... 44 Spending DA - Snowball Links.. .............................................................................................. 45 Armed Services Tradeoff Link ...................................................................................................... 4 6 Objectivism Links ......................................................................................................................... 47
I
* * *A/T States CP - MUST READ * * *;.........................................................................................48 Civic Engagement Down Now. ............................................................................................... 4 0 Competitiveness Key to Economy ......i......................................................................................... 3 1 Competitiveness iz Zero- Sum .............1.. ................................................................................. 51
A ff -
CNDI '06 Ein, Arnett, Burshteyn
A/$ Civic Engagement Adv.

$neaeernent High Now
I
for AmeriCorps are uneccessary and wastefiil.
There are several problems with this
BY comparison, 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers are a relatively insignificant portion of the overall volunteer pictur-c say that efforts such as baby-sitting and bake sales should not be counted as volunteering, but who is to decide whir constitutes volunteerism? The beauty oftradi:iona& understood volunteerism is that it flourishes outside the p ~ reporting and regulatory apparatus and is not required to meet any government's definition of community service.
Last year. according to Independent Sector a i d the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, 83.9 million ad& volunteered time to a formal charity organiza1:ion and 89 percent of American households gave a total of $177.05 h charity.5 In 2001, the Knights of Columbus alone raised and distributed $125.6 million (half the AmeriCorps budgt volunteered 58 mil lion hours of service (a~mdst 90 percent of AmsiCorps participants' service ti1ne).6 The depth o o American charity and the vast potential to ex:.~and these great activities ought to be constantly noted and s t r - el
CNDI '06 Lin, Amett, Burshteyn Alt Crus for Decline - Laundry List Civic engagement is constantly decre sing for many reasons that the aff doesn't solve for- Ii(< list.
ic lilt: before S ults is nothing new. As far hack as 5 ic life than their parents and grand!
CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn Politics Tradeoff Turn
AmeriCorps h Kat/Al
Volunteering trades off with knowledbe of politics - turns their civic engagement adv. Galston, William A. November 16, 2031. (Galston, William A. Op-Ed Staff Writer for the Chronicle of Hig
Education. "Can Patriotism Be Turned Into Civjc Engagement?" http:iiwww.pewtrusts.com/newsinew~~subpage,cfm?contentitemid=85O&contenttypeid=l4&page=nr3) On the contrary, in numerous surveys, focus groups, and studies, young people characterized their volunteering as a alternative to politics, which they saw as coApt. untrustworthy, and unrelated to their deeper ideals. They had limit knowledge of government's impact, either on dhemselves or on those they sought to assist. They understood why it 811 feed a hungry person at a soup kitchen; they did not understand why it matters where government sets eligibility lev food stamps or payment levels for the Earned Income Tax Credit. They displayed confidence in personal acts with consequences they could see for themselves; they had no such confidence in collective actions (especially those ~ r n d through public institutions) with consequence; they viewed as remote, opaque, and impossible to control.
I
CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn
AmeriCorps It KatlAt
A/T Improves Communities

AmeriCorps claims to teach self-reliabce, but in reality only teaches reliance on the guvernm turning their solvency. Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ("A ericorps: Six Years of Waste and Fraud"
The Congres~onalHunger Center (CHC), the lead grantee for Beyond Food, exemplifies AmeriCorps' "humility." 9 grant application states, "Beyond Food1 DC exists to fight hunger by developing leaders. . . . Our inembers . . . lean 'Capital' environment where some of our natiu,nts greatest humanitarian experts work." [I 51 CHCfswebsite proclai1.1 "advocacy" is one of its key tasks and provide.s links to the congressional websites of Rep. Tony Hall (1)-011) and K Wolf (R-VA), the CHC co-chairmen. [ I 61
I recently asked AmeriCorps chief Harris Wofford how food stamp recruitment meshed with his statements that Am promotes self-reliance. Wofford replied, "A self-reliant citizen knows what their opportunities are and tjgures r to make use of those opportunities." [I 71 App~rently, the key to self-reliance is knowing the address of the local we'' office.
AmeriCorps fi KatlA~ Can't Solve Democracy
AmeriCorps is nothing more than a h)ollow attempt to relegitimize the government in hopes spurring civic responsibility.
Private Orgs Solve Democracy Better Private Volunteer Organizations Pres w e Democracy Mary Theroux, Vice President, Independent Institute, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESPONSES TO KATRINA: WHAT C AN WE LEARN?, October 20,2005, p. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/ rticle.asp?id=1589 accessed May 20,2006
1 to
help one another and solve our own problems, we lei
Ameri Corps h i K at/A -
Can't solve for long time - current ge eration doesn't care and can't be fixed Galston, William A. November 16,2001.(G ston, William A. Op-Ed Staff Writer for the Chronicle of Higl~er Edr
"Can Patriotism Be Turned Into Civic Engagem http://www.pewtrusts.com/news/news~subpage. ontent-iten1-id=850&content-type-1d- 14&pagr;=nr-3) Second, political scientists have found that civ udes andpatterns of behavior formed when young tend to ~ e r s i throughout adult life. The young Americans who banded together to battle the Great Depression and fight in World became what the political scientist Robert putdarn has called the "civic generation," unabashedly patriotic and pervr, participatory. The young Americans who came of age during Vietnam and Watergate cannot shed their deep scrspiciL politicians and political power. If today's young Americans continue to regard civic affairs as irrelevant, they are Iik abstain from political involvement throughout their lives.
CNDl606 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

&/T Improves Volunteerism
AmeriCorps 1' Katlii
AmeriCorps isn't even an example o volunteerism, so don't let them garner any impacts ob'l Shawn McBurney. October 30,1998. "Am riCorps the Pitiful"
i . e / ----r-',dcje;5erver?~~~-lcjen~ w~~ , rp o I-c v s I>: //h~~\;w.~-';;c;ld.c~~c~~/.';i
~lrlc r
i -<:ups)
rhetoric, it is not a v~ The most obvious and striking anomaly absut AmeriCorps is that, despite all the ~ r a n d program at all. Rather, it recruits college-a29 students for paid positions and then uses taxpayers dollars to subsidi organizations and agencies that hire these recruits. Organizations that would like to be certified as AmeriCorps site. submit proposals andrompete to be selected by state commissions. In 1995, according to the General Accounting V 1996, other taxpayer-funded federal agencies, LGAO), there were could qualify as AmeriCorps sites.4 In Illis scc the National workers lion1 another federally f~~nded agew
AmeriCorps has become a public job program, void of any traces of volunteerism. Shawn MrRurney. October 30, 1998. T'~rneri~orps the Pitiful"
And the president's vision of helping recruits ,attendcollege has also not materialized. Thouxh AmeriCorps wassup help young people pay for college in exchange for conlmunity service, only 54 percent of those eligible fbr edu&t awards have actually used them. 15 In Des Moines, Iowa, "nearly one in five AmeriCorps workers. . .already has a degree and more than half in the program are126 or older." 16 Contrary to the aims of the program, it seems many fj members either grinot planning& attend col,eae or are not college graduatessaddled with student loans. In form 2 substance, AmeriCorps has become a public jobs program.
I
I
Not only is AmeriCorps detrimental i o civic engagement, but it also has no affect on inspirill people to volunteer. I
AmeriCorps has become a showcase for the waste, abuse and cynical political manipulation inherent in many teder subsidized civic enterprises. Paying a stipend to t k s e high school and college-age volunteers demeans the efforts o thousands of other young adults who volunteer simply becausethey care. Indeed, AmeriCorps recruits, nearly 40 pi whom drog out ofthe prograln, have failed to catch the volunteer "spirit," despite getting paid for their work. Nor slightest evidence that the program has infectt;d others with the volunteer "bug." AmeriCorps is the no-show job of millennium.
ik
ArneriCorps is contrary to the root p Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. and Krista Still a Bad Idea for Citizen Service"
of volunteerism. #1564. June 28,2002. "America
Americorps is a Failure, It Doesn't
~d bstantially Increase Volunteerism
Kenneth R. Weinstein and August Stofferahn, April 24. 1997, Kenneth R. Weinstein is former director of the Govex Reform Project and August Stofferahn is a forncer research assistant at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-base[ policy research institute, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/EDO42497b.cfr~i Even a study of the program fo&e Independent Sector, a group that supports AmeriCorps, found that the presencc AmeriCorps members created only a "3.5 per:ent increase in hours volunteered by genuine volunteers." Yet, despite this record of mismanagement, President Clinton wants to increase spending for AmeriCorps to $546.5 the government receives in taxes from more than 2.5 million i l V r next year -- a figure equal to the amount of rn~mey working families. According to Sen. Charles !3rassley, R-Iowa, "It's an outrage that the president proposes to incre: spendine;for this program, which can't even pass an audit." In short, AmeriCorps is neither an effective deans for promoting volunteerism nor a cost-effective means to help f pay for college. It's time to end this expensive boondoggle. If Congress and the Clinton administration truly want 1~ volunteerism in America, they should work th end AmeriCorps.
m
/T Im roves Volunteerism
Ameri Corps 1'

Katli";
(
(
I
A/T Disast:er Relief eriCorps Fails
Arnericorps Fails in Natural isa aster-4, Hurricane Katrina Proves Jim Gilmore, Chairman, National Cou on Fteadiness and Preparedness, LESSONS OF KATRINA, November p. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/ apps/nl/content3 accessed May 20,2006
Hurricane Katrina destroyed critical infjastructure in and around New Orleans and the GulrCoast and caused death and dislocation for those in her path. Katrina damaged energy production, refining and distribution systems; closed disrupted supply chains that had significant regional and national economic impact; degraded vital capabilities. incl region's communications architecture, which hampered the ability of Sederal,,state, local and private sector eniities I in a timely and effective way: and exposed flawed response and recovery planning, a lack of coordination, and pm execution at all levels. Four years after 9/11, \ve are not as prepared as we should be for a national disaster, whethe: man-made or terrorist in nature.
Other Programs Solve Other Programs Solve Natural

Mary Theroux, Vice President,
RESPONSES TO KATRINA:
rs and Poverty Better, Such As the Salvation Army Institute, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WE LEARN?, October 20,2005, p. accessed May 20,2006.
three years on the National board of The Salvation Arm)':
\
lives through its detox and transitional housing and programming. It provides iob training, character-based after-sc11 summer camp programming for children, toys at the holidays; shelters for battered women and their children; senicbL , housing and programming for aged-out foster care yo11n.q L , ! one of the largest relief agencies w London, it operates in 109 countries every day, with 65.000 t in the U.S. alone. S o when disaster on Army is already there, ready to spring into action. The Independent Institute, where I ice President, tackles many of these same problems on a Ion: basis. We commission and produce health-care costs, e n e m the crisis and housing; delivery of hot meals -
Better in Natural Disasters and Mary Theroux, Vice President, RESPONSES TO KATRINA: Institute, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WE LEARN?, October 20,2005, p. accessed May 20,2006.
The giant private hospital company HCA he a "Hurricane Lessons Learned" planning meeting last fall, followin; year's devastating Florida hurricanes. Some gaps they identified were: cell phones often fail, so alternative phc systems are needed. Roads become impassa so emergency supplies have to be stored closer to hospitals. Hach-t generators are needed. As a result of the me , HCA provided its hospitals with satellite phones, hurricane 5 m additional backup generators. It struck deals kith local businesses like refrigeration, water, diesel and gasoline con provide supplies quickly in the event of an erfiergency. In hurricane-prone areas it also warehoused food. medical and other gear closer to i m m e d i a t e aftermath of Katrina senior management set u p a "war roor quickly decided they would need to lease 20 'lelicopters to evacuate their Tulane hospital. HCA's chairman arid Cl hesitate jn ordering them to do so. They used ham radios to create a makeshift air-traffic control system and immef began ferrying critically ill patients out, withput one mishap. Literally across the street, the state-run Charity hospital was without emergency supplies and unable to get ally go\ help in evacuating. Subsisting on fruit cocktail and a dwindling supply of water, Charity's patients were only save( ferried by boat to Tulane and evacuated by HCA's privately-leased helicopters.
CNDlC06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn
Private Organizations Have Better ~ b More d Efficient Resources than Government Progra
Institute, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
I Other Programs Solve

WE LEARN?, October 20,2005, p. 15 89 accessed May 20,2006
Similarly, Wal-Mart and Home Depot had emergency-response glans in place and their senior mana~ementirnmed grann into action ordering t h m implemented, sending s u p p l k lilte generatas, food, water, flashlights and batteri areas hit. They were able to quickly establish and maintain a supply chain throughout the region. Pfizer distribu!e_& drugs and medicines via Wal-Mari and other J-etailers.Budweiser delivered truckloads of water and ice. Ford provi. vehicles for search and rescue. At the heart of the corporate response was a sr:unning array of advanced communication networks that kept firms iru coordinating. Fol1owin.o last year's tsunami aid effort, the Business Rcrundtable had arranged for each of its 160-me companies to designate ad&aster-relief point ma_n_~The_v were in place and ready before Katrina hit. The U.S. Char) Commerce set up a clearinghouse to compile l i s t s o f n e e ~ s u p p l i e s .Each donor company indicated what orderteliminating duplication or delay. Black & De .ker7semployees worked through Labor Day weekend to produce 17161 generators.
AmeriCorps KatJii
TURN: Government Programs Mary Theroux, Vice RESPONSES TO KATRINA: http://www.independent
iency Deters Aid to Natural Disaster Victims Institute, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WE LEARN?, October 20,2005, p. 15 89 accessed May 2 0,2006
Meanwhile, what was going on the New Orle~ ns mayor's and Louisiana governor's offices? Both expressed frustr.;l hel~lessness, caused by having no plans for*\l emergency of this magnitude. The mayor's office set up operalions p r i v m owned and operated Hyatt hotel, judged the safest base. They were equipped with old field-type phones ti couldn't be recharged. Both the governor and_mayorclaimed they were paralyzed by lack of communication, and p finger at the feds' failure to come to the rescue. The entire governmental response, from top to bottom, was bec of leadership, action, and absolutely no coc~rdination or communication between any two agencies. It had bee immediately pointed-gut following 9/11 that rpuch of that rescue effort was hindered and many of the deaths ofh and police were due to the ina rnselves. Yet four y~ and despite billions of dollars cv act same sys1en.1~ place. When one mayor in Louisiana Eventually a burc promised to write a memo to his supervisoi.. Evacuees on a boat could not receive permission to dock along the Mississippi river. A sheriff was told he could only get the help he was seeking if he emailed his recluest-of COLII-st was flooded and without electricity.
I
.I
CNDI '06 Lin, Amett, Rurshteyn
Amel-iCorps: Kat/,
Gov ~ b n t r Makes o~ Disasters Worse

TURN: Government Control of ~ a t d r aDisaster l Area's Prevents Kescue Supplies from Ge Causing More Death and Suffering Mary Theroux, Vice President, Inde endent Institute, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESPONSES TO KATRINA: WHAT CAN WE LEARN?, October 20,2005, p. http://w.independent.org/newsroom/artic1e.asp?id= 589 accessed May 20,2006
I'
What is probably most inexcusable and has been kept relatively quiet is that the Red Cross and the Salvation Ar11aj staged and ready to enter New Orleans with food, water and other emergency supplies. The roads to the Snperdonr . o t 01 Convention Center were open, and other area,s of the city remained similarly accesgble. But the L Homeland Security denied them permission to gojn, saying their presence would "prevent people from leaving." In the ultimate, horrible example of a bureauc;ratic Catch-22, the government kept people from leaving Ncw Orleav Dept. of Homeland Security would not let aice agencies in, sayinp having aid available in the city would create a naa keep people from leaving. Eventually, of course, aid agencies were a110 ed in, and within a few days following Icatrina, the Salvation Army place I0 mobile feeding units, including at the evacuation points, as well as 2 large mobile kitchens, with a total Ci serving 200,000 meals per day. As of Sept. 3b, the Salvation Army has served over 2 million hot meals plus over 3 sandwiches, snacks, and drinks from its 150 hobile feeding irucks plus 1 0 field kitchens deployed throu,ghout the has distributed over 35,000 cleaning kits: brooms, mops, buckets and detergent; and 60,000 food boxes. It has she1 people. Its Emergency Radio Network, designed to help peopl j a l fa family members, has received over 60,000 inquiries and found almost 16,000 survivors. A woman from our San FI office was dispatched to run the Astrodome cperations, returning last week. As Hurricane Rita built up, the Salvati deployed office workers. including our web? aster, to Houson to be prepared to provide disaster assistanct: there else was already deployed following Katrina, In all, aln~ost 7,000 Salvation Army officers, together with allnost 7J Salvation Army employees, plus thousands ~'trained volunteers have served in the affected areas, and they will r e ~ long as relief is needed. They're still serving in Florida in the aftermath of last year's hurricanes there, and they rej onsite at Ground Zero for two years followinn 9/1 1,with a large tent facility housing rest faciIitiesLfoodlclean soc counseling and other needs for the rescue wofkers there.
r"
nill lion

A/T Environment Adv. Indfficiency => Worse Problems
I
Arneri Corps Katli
Due to the inefficiency of AmeriCor s, they have effectively worsened many key environrnc. societal problems. I Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ("A@eriCorps: Six Years of Waste and Fraud"
In southern California, 37 AmeriCorps recruiks recently helped the EPA implement new regulations that forcibly n amount of water people can use in their homes. They b g i e d themselves by distributing "u&ra-low-flush toilets" an shower devices to low-income people. The dqvices have spawned a tidal wave of protest on Capitol Hill. Accordin National Association of Home Builders, three~-fburth of its members have complained that the new federally IIEJ~~: flush toilets are more prone to clogging and qther problems. Ben Liebeyman, a lawyer and regulator^ expert with ti Competitive Enterprise Institute, observes, "People complain abo~lt havinGo flush the new toilets twice. rT11ey1 dd nearly as well. Some new models are unbeliefably noisy." Not surprisingly, the new federal toilet man,(dateshave also created a black market for older toilets. Arnel-iC.01 members helped "solve" this problem by rodding up and crushing older. more reliable toilets. The new shower required under a "federal dribble mandate," l i w i s e severely restrict the amount of running water and increase sho The AmeriCorps organization essentialluelbs people to take advantage of the government, turning their solvency
CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn AIT dducation/~ompetitiveness Adv. A/T /mproves Volunteer Education
I
Amel-iCorps Kat//-
AmeriCorps "volunteers" are in it f o the possibility of being rewarded in the future with g education. Jeffrey Selingo, Staff Writer, CHRO~ICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION September 28,l'P http:/lchronicle.com/colloqi~yl98/am$ricorps/background.htmaccessed May 29,2006.
A few AmeriCorps officials tacitly admit thaj! the ro ram has done little to expand access to higher e d u c a t i o n A ~ r4-e AmeriCorps statistics, aAttle more than half pf the program's 62.000 graduates who have earned education awards. the prdnts -- a f i w that AmeriCorps officia(s play down because participants have as long as seven years to use ti Even so, in a survey, only half of ~ r n e r i ~ o r p members b mentioned the education award as one of the top three rea had applied to t k r o g r a m . Every member, however, put "helping the community" in the top three.
Americorps Trades Off With Other Follege Scholarships Grassley, Senator Charles, a can, represents Iowa in the United States Senate, Oct. Americorps: Working
or no assistance from the federal gov&rnment.And, while the costly ArneriCorps program is revving L I ~ ? another more efficient education prodram is strapped for cash. The Library of Congress reportsthat. in t-eai dollars. the value of the maximum Pell Grant had decreased 25 percent since 1980. This is unfortunate because, as g n ir u d S the Senate consideration of AmeriCorps, live college studen could qualify for Pell Grants for the cbst ofjust one AlnACorps participant.
AC Makes it Worse
Officials say the AmeriCorps foundakion is a useless fraud, and doesn't educate anyone abo anything. 1 Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ( " ~ k e r i ~ o r Six ~s: Years of Waste and Fraud"
boondoggle. AmeriCorps is a fla bearer in alinton's literacy crusade. Almost half of AmeriCorps' members are i r a literacy or mentoring. In an August 9, 1999 speech, Clinton congratulated AmeriCorps members while boasting, "' -
. . taught n~illions of children to read." [18] One AmeriCorps official recently ridiculed tdis claim and expressed doubt that AmeriCorps members had tai1g1ltc of AmeriCorps recruits in this area. Robert SE dozen children to read, a tremendous research agency, observed, federal ed~~cation former director of the National fraud that it was in the beginning. Thc wklolh "AmeriCorps is not foundation of this approach towards teachingreddm is fault
+
I
AmeriCorps education programs arq ineffective and inefficient because most of the people trying to train people to receive their1 GEDs haven't even completed high school. Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ("AberiCorps: Six Years of Waste and Fraud"
Like Clinton, ArneriCor~s' Wofford bragged !n 1998 congressional testimony that AmeriCorps had set a goal for it "effective education and literacy for every ch'ld." [20] While the proclamation made for good public relations, the ~naiority of AmeriCorps recruits simply have no experience or competence in teaching. Some AmeriCorps literacy rely on poorlv educated welfare recipients. I n fact, the largest single item in the AmeriCorps training budget is for Equivalency Degree (GED) preparation. ~ e r d i c k Max, the former chief investigator for the House Educatiori arid V subcommittee on Investigations and Oversig t, recently stated, "We went through and looked at the back~round of tutoring and mentoring. We found that w e a r e still studying for their GED. It made no s e n graduated from high school. don't send them back to mentor i a h e elementary school." [211 Robert Sweet ohserve( ur-plus years at a university cannot teach kids how to read, thcn wh Ilege kid or welfare recipient is going to hellp kids learn how to reac
li
1
I
AmeriCorps members are not qualified to educate children, and don't even attempt to teacl during the reading programs. Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ( " ~ k e r i ~ o r Six ~ s Years : of Waste and Fraud"
I visited one of t h y g r a m s , the Energy Express pro.eram in ran son^, West Virginia enrolls 600 college students to staff public scfiool classrooms for kids during the summer. I asked several AnmiCc members how much training they had receiveh. Each one looked at me as e w r ! e fi off my rocker. Member Brian F observed, "We're not teaching them to read1 we are iust exposing them and getting them to like it. You iust warn think they're doing a good iob." Incredibly, AheriCorps members are told not to correct children's gramm_ar..l added, "_Weare trying to trick them into learn np;." )231 The children in the pro.eram sat in cardboard boxes or tents "reading." In fact, puppet shows. not reading, ilwere a big part of the summer. as was 15 to 20 minutes of politically "noncompetitive recreation" each day. -
1
I
CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshtcyn
I
1(
I
I
AmeriCorps Kath
AC Corrupt Americorps is a Waste, It is a CorruGt System that Abuses Funding Michelle Malkin, Jan. 20,2001, Malvn is a graduate of Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio, Who S u ~ ~ o rAmericorps, ts http://wvi.w.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=l55
I
Where have all the fiscal conservative^ gone? Have these Republicans forgotten the countless examples of AmeriCorps-sponsored projects that &id participants to lobby for left-wing causes? Like the tax-subsidi~es AmeriCorps volunteers who lobbied akainst the voter-approved California initiative to put violelit criminal. in prison for life after a third violent ciirne. Or the recruits who showed their community spirit by disruptin! Republican political events while worting for the liberal advocacy group, ACORN. Or the AmeriCorps foot soldiers who pressed for rent control, expanded federal housing subsidies, and enrollment of more women in the Wopen, Infants, and Children welfare program. Or the AmeriCorps enrollees who distributed low-flush toflets as part of a government campaign. What about the millions of dollars tha werewasted during the program's first three years, when nearlaOC recruits wrres~ent to do busy ~ 4 L r e a u c r a t at s the Department of Justice, the Departnlent of' interior_ the Environmental Protection Agency! the Legal Services Corporation, and the National Endowment for t k YArts? Or the volwteers who were paid t o L o u r a p e immigrants in-Washington state "to talk with one another i n EnglishzOr the legions of untrained :/ncl miseducated young recruits who have been unleashed to tutor I children in reading. Citizens Against Government Waste, /he Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group, has vigilantly tracked such stomach-churning examples sinop AmeriCorps' inception. ! n a recent report, the group concluded that Clinton's pet cause "has become a shohvc:ase for the waste, abuse and cynical political manipulatiori inl~ererl in many federally subsidized civic end! ,rises,'' Both private and public investigators have deenled AmcriCorps' financial books #-Tunaud~t&le. AmeriCorps' own inspector general documented cases in whici recruits received grants for working ai McDonald's, not working; at all, and while incarcerated in prisotl. Nearly half of the participants drop odt before their service term is over. Nevertheless, government spendin oh AmeriCorps is UP 248 percent since itscreation. And there's no end *h_t. Thanks to aid and comfort f r s e p u b l i c a n s . Clinton's lepacy of waste and cynicism and cot-~-upted volunteerism has achieved political idmortality. The insatiable beast of bipartisanship lumbers on.
I
1 AC
Makes Kids Dumber
The AmeriCorps organization violatks the law multiple times per mission, but still manages incredibly ineffective educators. I Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ( " ~ k e r i ~ o r Six ~s: Years of Waste and Fraud"
of Mississippi to give $4,750 education awards to assistant tgghers already on the state payroll. Significantly, the : grant applicaiion was full of grammatical endrs. The Mississippi kislature had createdthe program in 1982 to bu in ~ississipp)~ assistant teachers are only required to read at an eighth-grade level. Mmar~ requirement is simply to provide an jverage of three extra hours of ti~torinr eackweek. Thus, AmeriCorpa effectively paying nearly $50 an hour for individuals with meager reading ability to tutor. In fact, enrolling state ~c en~ployees in AmeriCorps programs is a cleaf violation of federal law. But it provides AlneriCorps with more b r x opportunities.
I
Americorps Does Not Solve Educatioln or Competitiveness, it Does Not Solve the Underlyin I Problem Dr. Richard Ingersoll, Feb. 27,2004, j ~ rIngersoll . is also author of "Who Controls Teacher which received the American Associ2jtion of Colleges for Teacher Education 2004 Outstand Writing Award, Failure of Programs1 Like Teach for America to Solve U.S. Teacher Short3 h ttp://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/so~rcesheet.php?id=80
I
Recent rumblings over the effectivendss of programs like Teach for America don't surprise Dr. Richard lngersoll, a leading expert on teacher $upply and retention issues who writes about the topic in the new boo "Letters to the Next President: What We Can Do About the Real Crises in Public Education." "Teach for America is only one amonb many current teacher recruitment efforts, such as troops-to-teachers financial incentives, alternative training routes and overseas recruiting programs. e worthwhile,&, unfortunately, tl-ley "Some of these programs, including Teach for America, m a ~ very will not solve the p r o b l e m s c h o o l s e a c h e r s . Indeed. a close l o o M the data shows these efforts are largelk a case of a wrongdiagnosjs and a wrong prescription. "The data show that the problem is &shortages, in the sense that we are producing too few new teachers indeed. we overproduce. Rather, the pboblem is turnover -- too many teachers departing their jobs, especial in the first few years. In short, recruitihg thousands of new candidates into teaching will not solve the teach crises if 40 to 50 percent of these newtrecruits leave the occupation in a few shortyears. We have a 'Icalg I bucket' problem." -

i A/T Improves Literacy
t
Aineri Corps I<at/-/
The AmeriCorps organization is atrdcious at organizing literacy missions, which is essentia talking time for immigrants to talk tQ other immigrants in English. Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ("A@eriCorps: Six Years of Waste and Fraud"
Sports Association, a Harlem-based program: likewise submitted an error-laden application that would have g u a z flunking in any high school English class. According to Sen. Patty MUII-ay(D-WA), Literacy AmeriCorps has been very successful in my home state in dsii like setting up talk times for people with limiied English proficiency to talk with one another in Enalish." 17.11 Sim it necessary to use taxpayer funds to encodrage immigrants to talk to each other? Perhaps Congress will next no Americans will play checkers wit11 one anbther unless a new federal agency is created to distribute free checker
The net benefit of AmeriCorps is eqdal to zero, especially when it comes to its literacy prog Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ( " ~ b e r i ~ o r ~ Six s :Years of Waste and Fraud"
there is taxpayer money. Voila! Problem solded." At best, ArneriCorps is similar to Title 1 federally subsidi~ed tea for the nation's poorest school districts-a prbararn the General Accounting Office recently concluded has failed it student achievement. r251 Even if a handful f students learn something in the short-run from AmeriCorps "readm ad-back-slapping, it is likdy lost when theyireturn to dlsmal public schools.
e--

I
Ameri C'orps Kath Fraud Turns Education

II
AmeriCorps is atrocious when it attebpts to manage money, rendering most of their educa I based missions worthless. Jeffrey Selingo, Staff Writer, C H R O ~ I C L E OF HIGHER EDUCATION September 28,19 http:l/chronicle.com/colloquy/98/am~icorps/background.htm accessed May 29,2006.
I
Instead of drawing new students into the eduaational pipeline, they say. AmeriCorps1$4,725 scholarships have& aided those who would have found other wa& to pay for a higher education. Some ofthe educational awards have unused. as people have joined AmeriCorps piimarily for the work experience.
If a goal of the program was to help more ~dpericans attend college, higher-education lobbyists say. the money cu. been far more effectively used to pay for pel11 rants or federal work-study programs. College officials argue. & f that the cost to the Eovernment of one ~ m e r i k o r participant ~s is as much as five new Pel1 Grants. -
CNDZ '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn
i I
An~eriCorps
Kat/:
U$ Competitiveness High Now

i
U.S. Competitiveness is unchallenged in Strength from Any Competitor Nation Segal2004 - Senior Fellow @ ~ouncill on Foreign Relations. Foreign Affairs, NovemberiDecem
At the moment, - it would beqrernature toddkire a crisis in the United Statesfscientific or technological competitib States is still the envy of the world foq reasons ranging from its ability to fund-basic scientific research to 11) with which&companies commercialize new/breakthroughs. This year, total U.S. expenditures on R&D arb expected to top $290 billion-more than twice the total for Japan, L l ~ c biggest spender. In 2002, the U.S. R&D total /exceeded that of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Uni Kingdom combined (although the United States trailed Finland, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, and Sweden in the 1.;~ R&D to GDP). And although scholars from ahher parts of the world may write relatively more science and erlgirlet papers than Americans do, U.S. research coniinues to be cited the most. I The Unitedstates also leads the maior e;lobal~technology markets, holding commanding market shares in aerospac scientific instruments, computers and office hachinery, and communications instruments. U.S. inforlnatior~ and comrnunications technology producers lead almost every sector. And for the last two decades, U.S. firms havebee providers of high-technolo~y services, accouikting for about one-third of the world's total. United --
CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn ~ompegtiveness Down - Alt Caus. - Visas Alt Causality: The Foreign-Visa crisis is Destroying United States Competitiveness Fareed Zakaria, B.A. from Yale and a /P~.D. in political science from Haward, Newsweek. I 1-2
Condolee~za Rice enters the State ~eparthent, she will face a number of pressing foreign-policy problclns g - i i solve. This will not be for lack of effort or intblligence on heypart. It's just that many forei~n-policy crises iirvolvc_ interests and activities of countries across thejFlobe, and changing these takes time. And even then, whether it's Ira1 Korea or Darfur, theres no quick fix that Wdshington can impose But there is a growin,q danger for the United St needs urgent attention, can be solved and is aimost entirely within Rice's power to handle. It's the foreign-visa crisr unattended, it is goingto have deep and lastidg effects on American security and competitiveness. The facts are plain. U.S. visa procedures havd become far too cumbersome, and bureaucrats are turning down far Iapplications than ever before. One crucial resblt is the dramatic decline of foreign students in the U.S.-the first sl downward in 30 years. Three new reports dodument the magnitude of this fall. Undergraduate enrollment from Ch1 dropped 20 percent this year; from India, 9 p4rcent; from Japan, 14 percent. The declines are even worse in graduc applications from China have dropped 45 perfent; from India, 28 percent. Some Americans might say, "Good riddance,iitls their loss." Actually the greater loss is ours. American universiiie from having the best students from across t h e I ~ uthe i single i o s t deadly effect of this trend is the erosion 0 caDacity in science and technology. The U.S. /economy has powered ahead in large part because of the amazing pra of America's science and t e c h n o l o g y research ~ ~ is now done largely by foreign students. The National S c k ~ [NSB) documented this reality last year, finding that 38 percent of doctorate holders in A-merica's science and e n u work force are foreign-born. Foreigners makd up more than half the students enrolled in science and engineeritie p The dirty little secret about America's scientific edge is that it's largely produced by foreigners andimmigrants.
P p -
As -
CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Busshteyn

A/T Competitiveness Key to Education
AmeriCorps Kat/i
Competitiveness Causes Nations to Avoid the Root Problems of Economic Recession Krugman 1994 - Prof Econ @ MIT, Foreign Affairs 3/1994
In June 1993, Jacques Delors made a special presentation to the leaders of the nations of the European Co~nln~~nity in Copenhagen, on the growing problem of Epropean unemployment. Economists who study the European sit~~atio curious to see what Delors, president of the EC Commission, would say. Most of them share more or less the same of the European problem: the taxes and regulations imposed by Europe's elaborate welfare states have made ernple reluctant to create new-iobs, while the relatively generous level of unemployment benefits has made workers ~lnwli accept the kinds of low-wage~obs that help keep unemployment comparatively low in the Unitedstates. The lnonc difficulties associated with preserving the European M m t a r y System in the face of the costs of German re~inificaa reinforced this structural problem. It is a persuasive diagnosis, but a politically explosive one, and everyone wanted to see how Delors would handle i he dare tell European leaders that their efforts to pursue economic justice have produced unemplo-yment as an unin product? Would he admit that the ems could be sustained only at the cost of a recession and face the implications e admissionfor European mqn~tary union? 1 Guess what? Delors didn't confront the probldms of either the welfare state or the ems. He explained that the soot 6: European unemployment was a lack of competitiveness with the United States and Japan and that the solution w a of investment in infrastructure and high techno log^ -
CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn Turn 4 Competitiven~ess Kills Economy

i
TURN: Competitiveness Threatens t/le Stability of the International Economy Krugman 1994 - Prof Econ @ MIT, Foreign Affairs 3/1994
Unfortunately, his diagnosis was deeply misl@adingas a guide to what ails Europe, and similar diagnoses In the U Q I are equally misleading. The idea that a countk's economic fortunes are largely determined by its success on world a hypothesis, not a necessary trtith; andas a plactical, empirical matter, that hypothesis is flatly wrong. That is. it i: not the case that the world's leading nations ale to any important degree in economic competition with each other. on world markets. The growing obsessic of their major economic problems can be attributed to failures tlo con~pete ad v a n f i d be seen, not as a well-founded concern, but as a view l face of overwhelming contrary evidence. ~ n yet d it is clearly a view that people very much want to hold -- a dcsii-c that is reflected in a remarkable tende~~cyof those who preach the doctrine of competitiveness to support their cast careless, flawed arithmetic. This article makes three points. First it areueb that concerns about competitiveness are, as an empirical matter, aln com~letely unfounded. Second, it tries to explain why defining,the economic problem as one of internationaiom~ nonetheless so &tractive to so many people.Jinally, it argues that the obsession with competitiveness is not only dangerous, skewing domestic policies and th&atening the international economic system. n i s last issue is, of coo: most consequentialfrom the standpoint of public policy. Thinking in terms of competitiveness leads. directly and i to bad economic policies on a wide range of $sues. domestic andforeign, whether it be in health care or trade.

C.'ompetitivenessTk~eory Flawed
I
Ameri Corps I< atli
Competitiveness Does Not Apply to bountries, They Are Not Corporations Krugman 1994 - Prof Econ @ MIT, koreign Affairs 3/1994
I I
I Well, here are the numbers. Similar calculations for the European Comrn&ity and Japan yield similar results. @er the period 1959-73, a periu vigorous growth in U.S. living standards and Few concerns about international competition, real gnp per worker-11c I .85 percent annually, while command grip p$r hour grew a bit faster, 1.87 percent. From 1973 to 1990, a period o stagnating living standards, command pnp g-dwth per hour slowed to 0.65 percent. Almost all (91 percent) of that however. was explained by a decline in domebtic productivity growth: real gnp per hour grew only 0.73 pemant. 11 the growth rate of living standards essentiallyjequals the rowth rate of domestic productivity -- not productivity~ competitors, but sirnplydomestic productivit\l. Even though world trade is larger than ever before, national livine ! are - overwhelmingly detgrnined by domestic factors rather than by some competition for world markets. How can this be in our interdependent world( Part of the answer is that the world is not as interdependent as you rr only 10 percent of the value-added in th
corporation's val ue-added.
lower prices. i !nternational trade, then. is not a zero-sum game. When productivity rises in Japan, the main rgult is a rise in Japa wages: American or European wages are t least as likely to rise as to fall, and in practice see111 to bc v unaffected.

Competitiveness As A Losing
I
I
II
Ameri COI-ps Katli
A/T/Competitiveness = Zero-Sum
I 1
1998
When production and trgde in particular indu4tries are stagnant, the effort at increasing competitiveness by one c o ~ simply displace foreign producers, with no ne/t gain - except in the form of some welfare gains for consumers ofca with access to lower cost goods, or a theoretical improvement in& efficiency of resource allocation (making t h ~ " assumption of perfect mobility offactors of pkoduction acr-oss sectors, regions, etc.). As the country losing out ma) with similar efforts at lowering costs, a downhard spiral ]nay result, leaving both rivals worse ofT; as laboi~r cost a conditions are the easier target for action in tde s m the risk is a race to the bottom which offsets the econol. promised by increased efficiency and competitiveness. The employment consequei~ces of such strategies are part& negative. I How serious is this risk? Official views are $ick to dismiss such a possibility. The Keport ofthe European Compi Advisory Group stresses that "competitivene~s is not a zero sum game". An increase in competitiveness in one cor seen as coming at the expense of another, as the gains in productivity and efficiency in different co~~ntries cat1 be-11 reinforcing (Competitiveness Advisory Grou 1996
---
+
. b

I
Ameri Corps iCutli
A/T Solvency AmeriCorps Ineffective
AmeriCorps is a certified "boondogglewthat exaggerates its accomplishments. Bnvard, James. October 9,2000. ("AberiCorps: Six Years of Waste and Fraud"
esteem, gave him a purpose in life, and rnade/himLware of the value of muJticulturalism and diversity. In reality, 11 I AmeriCorps is a huge boondoggle: * In Indianapolis, AmeriCorps recruits busied themselves paintinga giant m d o n the side of a pawnshop. * In Delaware. AmeriCorps members are r&cruitinr women for the Women, Infants and Children welfare progn. I even driving them to welfare offices. * In Virginia Beach, recrui& helped the tit$ double the size of an outreach program that signs people up for hoir subsidies. They also "busied" themselves by d q a n i z i n ~ neighborhood parties. j
I
Claims about AmeriCorps successes bre fraudulent and invlaid. Their harms stories arc artificial. Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ("AmeriCorps: Six Years of Waste and Fraud"
The program sends 19 AmeriCorps recruits idto schoolrooms to lecture on child abuse and domestic violence. Its ; application promised that as a result of the prbgram, "there will be a_n_inc~a>e by 25 percent over last year in t h incidents of child abuse reported . . . as well ais the number of domestic violencancidents reported to police by the population." I91 The application also set to inbrease by 25 percent the number of students and families "served" wil emergency in-iunctions and child custody orders as a result of ArneriCorps activism. Once allegations have been made and parentsi dragged into the dock, AmeriCorps helps pay the accusers' court cos including the cost of a court reporter. I asked rograrn director Cynthia Rodgers and if there were any safegl~ards t~ encouraging false accusations. She responde bluntly, "No. But if you look at reports out there, the number of accusations is low. The criminal justice system-the people who interview children-are very sophisticated, certainly much more so~histicated than a dhild's mind." 1101 However, false child abuse accusations have become a national scandal in recent years. Florida in particular- has hi of some of the worst child-abuse witch hunts l.11 recent decades, including false accusations in a case spearheadcd I Bate Attorney Janet Reno and based on a be& of absurd alle atiom coerced by psychiatrists out of young childre] asked how many of the charges of c h j l ~ u s t a i n e d l ' ( i . e .found . to Rodger~ replied, "We would not even addresd that." [ I 1 7 This implies that simply increasing- the number of child accusations is in the public interest, regardlless of whether the charges are valid.
d'
/ AmeriCorps Ineffective
i AmeriCorps artificially claims beneficiaries, and success evaluations are skewed because AmeriCorps programs are "self-evalbated".
I
Most AmeriCorps success claims have no mdre credibilit than a political campaign speech. This is because the v; of AmeriCorps programs are "self-evaluated",: the only evidence AmeriCorps has of what a program achieved is w recipient claims. Moreover, one of AlneriCohs technical assistance consultants actually encourages grantees to in number of claimed beneficiaries: "If you feel [your program affects a broad group of individuals who may not be rc personal services from members. . . then list the whole community." r301 Incredibly, the southern California11toile claimed to have benefited a whopping 30 million people-almost the entire population of California!
I
+
1
AmeriCorps success claims exaggeraled- AmeriCorps measures its success by the number it employs-not by how their efforts pay off. Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ("AberiCorps: Six Years of Waste and Fraud"
achievement claims. GAO noted that ~ m e r i d o r p s "generally reports the results of its programs and activities by q the amount of services AmeriCorps perform. . . . Although [AmeriCorps] has enumerated and charact them does not fully measure program results or outcomes as requi Government Performance and Results Act 04 1994.'' 13 11 In other words, the fact that X number of bodies a p p e s number of hours at X number of work sites c@es not prove that AmeriCorps has achieved anything more grandiost boosting the number of government e m p l o ~ standing ~ ~ s around with their hands in their pockets. GAO criticized A~neriCorps for failing to make any eftbrt to n.leasui-ethe actual impact of its members' actions.
-
count in^
I
II
Arneri Corps 1Cat/,{
~meri~ora Volunteers b Drop Out/Are Criminals

I
AmeriCorps ''volunteers" end up eit$er dropping out of the program, or becoming puppet& political figures behind the organizat/on. Shawn McBurney. October 30, 1998. /"AmeriCorps the Pitiful"
Although the president claims that ~ r n e r i ~ o volunteers ds are "doing work that won't get done any other way," vo charitable activity is, in fact, flourishing among college students across the country. In reality, instead of an armu do-gooders envisioned by the president. ~me{icorps recruits have become just another layer of taxpaver-s~clbsidize bureaucrats, working in government agenciesjor mimicking the work of lobbyists and political organizers f o ~ e n t community organizations. AmeriCorps' track record of imbuing student4 wit11 a sense of "opportunity and responsibility" is dismal. Nearly 4(1 AmeriCorps employees drop out of the program. 1 Meanwhile, the program's budget has double_, from $2 I7 1niI1ic I to $438.5 million for fiscal year 1 999.
I
Most AmeriCorps members quit or alre fired because of criminal activity before their term Shawn McBurney. October 30, 1998. lUAmeriCorpsthe Pitiful"
That fiure should come as no surprise since $early half of the AmeriCorps recruits either quit or are fired from tlli positions before their year long term is up. The GAO discerned a troubling patternofrecruits being fired as a resul chronic truancy and cri~ninactivities.including felonies. Some quit midstream for other jobs, which is ironic bec AmeriCorps is supposed to awaken a sense o/duty and community responsibility in its volunteers. 14
I
I
A r n e r i ~ o i Makes ~s Thines Worse - General

!
I
Social welfare programs like ~ m e r i d o r worsen, ~s rather than relieve the problems that the trying to solve. POLICY REVIEW #75, January 191)6,1 accessed May 6,2006.
By the mid-1980s, it had become apparent, eden to Democrats, that liberalism's faith in the social-welfare state wa misplaced. A growing body of research indicated that the expanded social-welfare bureaucracy. more often than nc worsened rather than relieved the p r o b l e m s r i e d to solve. These policy failures also had clear political consequel Democratic Party began to lose traditional blde-collar voters, its former bedrock of support, who had becoii~cever _t frustrated by the mounting failures and ri~ing~costs of the welfare state. The liberal principles that undergirded the McGovernite approach -- especially the effod to blame society for failures of personal responsibility -- were at odi values of middle-class Americans. After ~ a l ( e Mondale's r landslide 1984 loss to Ronald Reagan, Democratic acti! as then-Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, Charles Robb of Virginia, and Senator Sam Nuorl of Gt banded together through the Democratic Leaqership Council to bring Democrats back into the mainstream.
tden- overn nor
CNDI '06 Lin, Ari~ett, Burshteyn
1
I
Ameri Corps KatL
A/T Funding Key
AmeriCorps is deeply rooted in fraub and has absolutely no integrity as an organization. I proves funding goes to waste Bovard, James. October 9,2000. ( " ~ b e r i ~ o r Six ~s: Years of Waste and Fraud"
I
. -
Aside from tremendous w , e AmeriCorps have suffered from widespread fraud in its programs. One scandal afte has arisen, from cases of members receiving bredit for working at McDonald's to members being allowed to counf member's work as their own to members gettjnp awards for doing nothing at all. 1261
I
Typical of the Clinton Administration, ~ m e r j ~ o r officials ps have a good excuse for everything. When Inspector C Luise Jordan informed AmeriCorps' manageibenl that many grantees had en aged in pervasive violations of feder, regulations, AmeriCorps headquarters denied any responsibility. 1271 Harris Wofford replied, "the Corporation ha, contractual relationship with operating or plalcementsites. Accordingly, the Corporation's efforts are focused 011 stren~thening state commission and parent odeanizations so that they conduct proper training and ovcrsiyht at the 1281 Jordan retorted, "The lack of a direct cointractual relationship does not relieve the Corporation of its responsik Federal - agency providing AmeriCorps funding to establish effective controls over compliance with laws arld reg111 i related - to the program."
4
AmeriCorps is nothing more than a Bovard, James. October 9,2000.
laundering system. Six Years of Waste and Fraud"

I
deral money to local recipients.
Despite all of it's monetary blunders: ArneriCorps is constantly rewarded with more monq ensuring the cycle of mismanagemeit continues. Shawn McBurney. October 30,19981 "AmeriCorps the Pitiful"
In the private voluntary organizations of ~rnbrica. such bloated overhead, inappropriate diversion of funds, and pc inauditable books would be grounds for the dismissal of executives, the overhaul of the governing board. nlaoa,wl &aJceups. and possibly an IRS audit. Yet, under the not-so-watchful eye ofthe Clinton Administration, no1 only ir mismanagement and abuse gone uncured, buk these practices have been rewarded with budget increases. under\+ the involuntary contributions of taxpayers.
1
I
A/T Funding Key
More Funding and Members Doesn' Solve, Americorps Will Still Fail Grassley, Senator Charles, a Republipan, represents Iowa in the United States Senate, Oct. Americorps: Working Families Will Pav the Pricc, http://www.heritage.org~esearch/~~ation/~~505.cfm
The Administration's premier nationaljservice program, "An~eriCorps," today stands in danger of-ioi~~ing a long list of costly Great Society proer:[ms. what's more, ArneriCorps likely will squander money that couk be used to provide students of working families an opportunity to attend college. This is not good news for those of us in Congress who want to s$e this concept succeed. Americorps was sold to Congress as a program to help pay the costs ofcolleke and to encourage young people to perform community service. However, early indicators reveal its apjproach is impractical for many studgts and costly for taxpayers. In 1992. Americorps demonstration pro-ikcts showed a drop-out rate of 20 percent, and a bottom line cost of $30.400 for a single participant to codplete his or her term of service.

Fraud Tanks Solvency
AmeriCorps Kath
afer. Backgrounder #1564. June 28,2002. "America
Idea for Citizen Se

I
Since its creation in 1993 as part ofthe_l\latioha~ and Community Service Trust Act, ArneriCorps has been plag~~eu -problems. Participants who sought its help t G e T t h e o s t s of college ed_ucation in exchange for community servi assigned initially to federal agencies and departments. and grants were used to subsidize political advocacy and acr AmeriCorps could n o t m i n participants. wad unable to attract private-sector funding, and quickly looked like ano federal jobs program. Several independent auhits of the proeramointed out mismanagement and serious cost ova the real cost per participant considerably higqer than advertised.2
Amerieorps is a Corrupt System thal Abuses Benefits and Funding

of government relations at the Cato Institute and the former lez Derrick Max, Oct. 25, 1999, Derrick Max is investigator on the committee u~ith responsibility for AmeriCorps, CAT0 Institute, http://~~~.cato.org/dailys/l0-25-99.htn11 1 A case in point is the AmeriCorps program id Terre Haute, Indiana. In June of this yearfit about the same titme Ai staff was living it up in Las Vegas, i t x a s leaitned that two AmeriCorps programs operated at Ivy Tech State Collet Haute had been susvended.An audit of t h ~ s e / ~ r o ~ r a showed i n s that h te y 0 0 0 in questionable cog Shockingly, over half of these costs were attdbutable to the fact that nojecord was kept of any work being perfom AmeriCorps members. Two of the AmeriCorps members who lacked any record of their work, and who had substantial stipends and scholarships, just happened to be related to the former director of the local Am*
sports and working part time for minimum-wbge salaries. While the President and his political at AmeriCorps would like us to believe that such yroble~ns are ral warned our committee in 1998 that rep0 isolated, that is simply not the case. funds susceptible to "errors of irregularities, includitig fiat record keeping was a high-risk area that almost half of all audited A m e K reporting ofAmeriCorps service Thus, while the President likes to quote stratus_' grantees had errors in their particivants around the country, there is r l t l statistics on the amount of adequately v_erifyif this work has actually bekn performed orwhat that work actually entailed. The President and the First Lady celebrate this glorious anniversary, surrounded by young men and women in An: uniforms bearing heart-warming, stories on hbw AmeriCorps has changed their lives, but don't be fooled. We need sure that this anniversary is ArneriCorps' last!-b*fore the diunken unclc embarrasses us all.
d/T Volunteer Spillover 1/L

No -volunteering stops once you Galstun, William A. November
"Can Patriotism Be 'Turned Into
- - -- --
William A. Op-Ed Staff'Wri~er for the Chronicle of Higher 8:
hl
11-1:
/ / k w h ! .~.,i;wi .~~.ist.s. --
p p p p
( ~ cl 1 :;~:=rl:~ 3)
known are the of a million universities. least half By last year,only 28 percent of freihmen felt that keeping up with-p down from 6( in 1966. Only 16.4 percent said they fre uentl djscussed politics, down from 33.6 percent. Not surprisingly, acqu polilical knowledre from traditional m & & a $ e s is way down, and relatively few young people are using the i ~ t replace newspapers and network-TV news as lsources of political infc~rmation. a quarter -
Less well -
7-
Freshmen did report significantly increased Iqvels of volunteering in their last year of high school, a trend that see! carrying over to their early college for graduation, and only a third of
I
7
A/T Recruitment Spillover I/L
AmeriCorps Kat/_
The myths about solvency spillover $e false. AmeriCorps uses loopholes to count new mea just to make the politicians behind t look like miracle workers. Bovard, James. October 9,2000. Six Years of Waste and Fraud"
Sector, a Washington, D.C.-based ~ o a ~ n o n ~ r o f fomdations i t s , and corporations, found that A ~ n e r i C o r p s ~ were actually responsible for only a "3.5 perdent increase in hours volunteered by genuine volunteers." 133L7rhisi r
this counts as 30 new volunteers .generated
Claims of AmeriCorps members recduiting other members is false- most members drop ou recruit a small amount of genuine vo unteers. Shawn McBurney. October 30,1998. "AmeriCorps the Pitiful"
Yet 83 percent of AmeriCorps funding contidues to come from the taxpayer. AGAO report found that in 1994-95 resources available per AmeriCorps participant averaged $26,654, of which about $17,000 came from AmeriCorpi from other federal sources, and $4,000 from @;and-local governments. The remaining amount --rouehly_$l,800 onepercent-- came from the private sector. I$? Further, AmeriCorps recruits cannot claim to attract volunteers for u organizations they work for. A study of the $orram for the Independent Sector found that the presence of ArneriC recruits created only a "3.5 percent increase ih hours volunteered by genuine volunteers."l3
sdL103pT l o A~r~uap! ~ B [awos [bg] , , - s u o ~ ~ ~ alqrqley3 z~u~~ Jaylo ~ o . . ' L[$!M s a 1 a d u r o 3 ~ auros ~ 3 ~ u! pql sd~o3!~aurv laycam s! m o p S B ~ ~ u a p ~ 'paAJasqo ~ ~ sey *3yr.13 , , luelr?lrA$SOU ,sdjro3!~aruv'(I~/V-X)e q s y a o ~ a ~ a d w
I
,s paH pua slno3g Log aql se q3ns sa93Fq3alqepadsa~ pue umouy:?~am y]!~ ~JOM 138 u! op sl!nlaar
I
;i~)~ez!ue a~ n~ asayj o J n S .eul[oJs3 q p o bqa!alex ~ u! S ~ @ U J A I O le!+is p l ~ 666 o ~ 1 ~ 1 naql r u! paJs!ssa sJaqmaly
M YJ!I(M
*sassaxmsraGaq pue aJom aAaq G ~ ~ ~ ! $ a alqs]yc?ya q ~ t t 3 ~ lc?aJ ~ o) 03 plnoa $eY/Lauour raAedxal su!a~p sdro~yaurv
I
Ameri Corps Katli
Decreases Volunteerism The perpetuated existence of Ameri orps threatens volunteerism and civic engagement at L by deterring real volunteers.
4
I
In summary, AmeriCorps is little more than itpe t social work tinged with messianic delusions. It appears special ol because it is "politically blessed" by politiciarps who seem to believe that work funded by taxation is more n~eaninr! work paid for voluntarily. At best, ~ r n e r i c o d allows s politicians to claim credit for good deeds that citizens woulr performed even if AmeriCorps never existed.l~t worst, it pulls nonprofits into the government orbit and sows t h ; , bureaucratization and politicization. As DO& Bandow, former special assistant to President R m e m a r paying a handful of young kids and claiming /hey are 'volunteers.' AmeriCorps ]nay be undermining and sqi~eezin! volunteers. " I
trengthening community service a d youth volunlee ofit organizations to hold their hands out to the fede government for help and advancing the notior1 that volunteers should be paid with taxpayer dollars. It has redefine< volunteering as a compensated activity.
AmeriCorps hinders rather than helds societal goals and clouds the values of the American regarding government involvement i$ society.
President Bill Clinton sought to capture this sbirit by creatjn AmeriCorps, a contmversial program that Presidenh would like to reform and expand as part of a &eater and more promising effort to promote service and citjzel~ship. good intentions and several improvements, ~ h e r i ~ o r remains ps a deeply flawed program that hinders rather than the President's larger goals. Far from encourahing the personal responsjbility and independent citizenship proper lc self-government and a vibrant volunteer sect$, AmeriCorps promotes a government-centered idea of social servic

j Decreases Volun teerism
Ameri Corps K at/,
Americorps Destroys Volunteerism

Kenneth R. Weinstein and August Reform Project and August policy research institute,
y Paying Participants
April 24, 1997, Kenneth R. Weinstein is former director of the GovL er research assistant at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-bast http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/EDO42497b.cfm
Independence Hall in Philadelphia offered a ~icturescjue backdrop for The-Presidents' Summit for America's Futo, convened by Presidents Clinton and Bush andl chaired by Gen. Colin Powell. While much was said in praise of Ali tradition of volunteerism. the summit would have done better to focus on the damage that has been done to t h a t . Washington since the 1930s and '40s. Since President Franklin Roosevelt's New ~ d a used l the federal government to usurp the traditional role of volur?t: institutions, particularly in the social service krea, the tradition of caring for the poor and needy in our own neigllb and of taking responsibility for them -- has d~terioratedalmost to the vanishing po& One pro,gramcontributing to this deterioratiob is President_Clintonlsshowcase program for promoting ~ 0 ~ 1 volur th AmeriCorps. As ifto illustrale the degree to hhich the spirit of community service is dying in this country. Amerit its - volunteers. This is the opposite of voluntekrism. The irony of the volunteer summit wagthat one of the major organizations behind it -- the Corporation for National Service -- is the $400 mJlion federally funded agency t h a t attendees should have denounces and pays for AmeriCorps,&tead of praising AmeriCorps, sum~njt
-
Americorps Centralizes Volunteeris
Testimony of Doug Bandow, Before the Senat Committee on Labor and Human Resources Oversight Hearing, N l k l On the Corporation for National Service and Cpmmunity Service Much more could be done, of course. But wuat makes service in America so vital is that it is decentralized, privai organized. centered around perceived needs, (and m r o w t h of people's sense of duty and compassion. A feden11 p a r a m , especiall~ ifit expands over time. risks teaching that the duty of ~ v i n gand , the job of organizing givine
Ip in the Government and Thus Destroys Furthur Volu

I :
erica's traditional volunteer ethic. At some point service to society c
national service movement is about institutiohalizino federal funding for national and community service. lt is abi changing the language and understanding of herviceto eliminate the words 'volunteer' and 'community service' an( place implant the idea that service is somethihg paid for by the government." This distinction is iinportant for the person being served. and society. In particulak. projects that involve the greatest interpersonal contact, suc11 as Big Brothers/Big Sisters and other work with "at kisk" ~ u t hare , better implemented by volunteers who give sacrifici;]~ workers who are paid for their efforts. The laber may be dedicated, but their cominitn!e_~is likely to be more limb a different kind of relationship is likely to debelop if the supposed beneficiary realizes that the helper is ~notivatecl to give and not to earn a paycheck or educatibna~ voucher. A second problem is that .government servicd programs treat "public" service as inherently better than private s e w comes in many forms, however. Being paid dy the government to shelve books in a library, whether as a formal el as an AmeriCorps member, is no more laudable or valuable than being paid by m w n Books to stock shelves in a A host of private sector io --consider health care professionals. medical and sc researchers, business entr any ofthese people earn less than they corlld i n a1 work; they have chosen10 serve in their ownlway. Yet government programs that equate p ~ a i employment c with effectively denigrate sewice through This public sector bias is reflected in the first 20,000 AmeriCorps participants were assignea agencies. For instance, the AmeriCorps workers to "update geological and hydrojl information for the U.S. and wildlife habitat. Jobs like these are rcspecta sure, but resemble "service." While AmeriCorps participants rilay good work as to promote volunteerism around the country.
-
Amel-iCorps Kat/_i
I Decreases Volunteerism
Amerieorps Creates Useless and ~ndrofessional Jobs and Destroys Volunteerism
Testimony of Doug Bandow, Before t e Senate Committee on L a b o r and Human Resources C)vL Hearing, May 21, 1996, On the Corpor tion for National Service and Community Service
In Fact. there are good reasons why many tasks that are not performed today are not performed, a fact ignored by 1 1 1 service advocates. But the availability of feddral money will usually create a pressing "need." A similar ~roblem o incentives has been evident in federal grant pkoprams which allow states to use national money for proiects witt-IOL local contribution. O b s g e s David ~uberoff.;of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, "One ofthe lessons interstate pro-iect is that in general ... if you dbn't require that states put up a reasonable amount of the cost, you rur building stuff that is probably not that cost-ef'fectivg Real volunteerism, in con-, works because the recipient organization needs to offer valuable enough work 1 0 s motivated volunteers. But Corporation persolhnel may be more interested in working off a school debt than "servir es~eciallythan serving in their particular position. In fact, the over~lment risks subverting the volunteer spirit by I participants too much. AmeriCorps members receive benefits of roughly $1 3,000--actually a bit higher in effect, sl educational voucher and --
4 a

p e n d i n g DA - Cost Links
Beginning with 20,000 recruits in 1994, worked only part-time. Almost half in his final budget proposed to $533 million. 131
iCorps by 1999 had 50,000 paid "volunteers" on its payroll, many o: program before completing their term of service. Despite this fac to 100,000 members by 2004 and increase its budget from $43.
Anyone age 17 or older can join ~ m e r i ~ o r pFull-time s! members are supposgd to put in 1,700~0urs of "service" return for a stipend of up to $8.750 (sometimks paid as a straight wage) plus health insurance. emergency dental c~ child care. and an education award worth up 110 $4,750 for tuition or paying off college loans. Many requits are on and (unlike si that from a private-sector job) does not affect how mnucl~ the: - the money they collect fiorn ~ r n e r i ~ o r p food stamps or housing subsidies. Because many recruits are relatively unskilled, their pay and benefit packagc is they could e x n in the private sector. The ave-age recruit costs AmeriCorps and its sponsors more than $23,000 an equivalent of almost $12 =hour for minimub-wage tasks!
Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn
1
~dendinp; DA - Snowball Links
Americorps Programs Cause Snowb 11 Spending

Kenneth R. Weinstein and August Stofferahn April 24, 1997, Kenneth R. Weinstein is former director of the Gov, Reform Project and August Stofferahn is a for1 research assistant at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-bas http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/~D042497b.cfi11 policy research institute, The Heritage AmeriCorps is the largest extension of the feberal government in recent years -- and the biggest federally funded -/ "promote volunteerism" since the days of t h e l ~ e w Deal. But AmeriCorps has proven to be a failure even on its E A~neriCorps grants federal funds to various dr anizations that, in turn, pay "volunteers" a stipend; at the compII:tic
per AmeriCorps member ran fiom $26,000 ty $32,000 -- nearly double the expected cost. Although a second CA< san~pling of 24 AmeriCorps projects, completed in February 1997, did not seek to determine average cost per par1
expensive federal jobs program; * One AmeriCorps project, the Casa Verde duilders, cost more than $100,000 per "volunteer" who completed the Other audited programs showgd sin~ilar wastb. The independent accounting firm Arthur ~ndersenhas twice examined AmeriCops books, finding them to be 1111: and incomplete -grounds for c r i m i = in the private sector. Most disturbing, a follow-up study concll the Program could not account for $38 millidrn in federal funding.
CNDI '06 Lin, Arndt, Burshteyn Armed Services Tradeoff Link Americorps Educational Benefits Causes a Trade-Off With the Armed Forces
Testimony of Doug Bandow, Before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources Ov Hearing, May 2 1, 1996, On the Corporation for National Service and Community Service
Indeed, this may be the crux of the national service debate: the role of opportunity costs. Paying young people wlz to good compensation for those j~jst out of school--tuition reliefplus salary, health insurance, and other benefits--] "darkened buildings," as sunnested by the President, or perform the many other tasks engaged in by AmeriCorps 1 entails forgoing whatever else could be done with that money. Moreover, it involves forgoing whatever else those people could do. "Public service" has a nice ring to it, but there is no reason to believe, a riori, that a dollar goin; service will yield more benefits than an additional dollar spent on medical researcl~, technological innovation, b ~ ~ s investment, or any number of other private and public purposes. Nor is having, say. a potential doctor spend such jobs as surveying residents, handling paperwork, and replacing light bulbs necessarily a good deal--in terms economics or service. Another potentially important opportunity cost is the diversion of bright men arid women from the military. The c Cold War has sharply cut recruiting needs, but it has also reduced the perceived national need. As a result, the ser had greater difficulty in attracting qualityrecruits. Yet various programs of educational benefits have always beell in~portant vghicle for attractingcollege-capable youth into the military. Providing similar benefits for civilian to hinder recruiting for what remains the most fundamental form of national service--defending the nation. Survei found that a majority of potential recruits would consider joining AmeriCorps rather than the armed forces becaus as a better way to gain educational assistance. Of course, many worthwhile service work remains to be done across the country. But governn~ent often stands in private individuals and groups who want to help. Such barriers should be stripped away, yet the Corporation and i divert attention from the ways the government hinders private provision of important social seyvices. Minim: laws effectively forbid the hiring of dedicated but unskilled people; any increase will make this problem worse. R on paratransit operations limit private transportation for the disabled. Regulations also harm other forms of vol~~rrr Health regulations prevent restaurants in Los Angeles and elsewhere f i o m b a t i n c ! food to the hungry, tbr instam in many cases important needs are unmet precisely because of peryerse governnslent policy.
CNDlb06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn
0b.jectivism Links
Objectivism Link: Forced Taxation s Used to Justify Enslavement to the Government, Lt. Totalitarianism
Michael J. Hurd, April 26,2004, Dr. $fichael Hurd is a psychologist, psychotherapist and authc Elfictive Therapy (New York: ~ u n h i l l l 1997) and Grow Up America!, "Giving Back": Involunt~ Servitude for the Young, http://www.c' ma .com/article.asp?ID=3635 John K e q keeps talking about young people "giving something back." Exactly what did young All take away and from whom did they take it? What is the factual basis for such an accusatio~~'? of young people? it so general. applied to the whole pop~jlation These are the questions that John Kerr -and indeed, most politicians, including many Republic don't ever want you to ask. But ask then you should. If one segment of the population can be ac P without evidence or reason, of owing slomething to a politician. then any or all segments of the 1; can be subject to the implications of thb same moral edict. The context in which John Kerry advahces this idea, at the moment, is college tuition. He assert: because the government is kind enough to provide grants and reduced loans to young people, stt] should have to pay for them in the fern of "national serviceu--itself a vaguely defined term, meant to imply anything not in one's own interest. This reasoning, however, is dishonest. )
It represents a half-truth-or a third-trdth. It is true that many young people benefit from govern for college. However, loans are loans qnd still must be paid back. As for government grants, this help is not "provided" by allybody except the taxpayers forced to make these donations to the cc education of young people they don't &ow.
I
PP
If John Kerry wants something to be &en back, he should give this money, taken coercively, bi people who didn't choose to make the& "donations" in the first place. Eliminating government ,E education would not only be morally fiir to those forced to pay for those grants against their wi! also drive down the cost of tuition, since colleges would have to work harder to conviilce parent their high tuition rates were worth it, in the absence of government help. The same applies to go. subsidies towards student loans.
I
Even more important than anything I ' d saying about college tuition is this: the principle of "glvi through coerced "national service" is id utter opposition to the foundations of a free society. At i' this principle implies that a human beidg owes a debt to society (meaning, in practice. to the government)-mereZyfor being alive and being born. This is the bedrock principle of totalitakianism. ing this principle that far. But on what basis is he justific why on earth does nobody challenge a politician w h e ~ merely because the government provides a few st11 to months or years of involuntary governrnen and the editorial pages! Even a little bit of a bad principle is a dad thing. Once the bad principlc is established--or goes unchallenged-the way is cleared for d o r e and more implementations of the bad principle as ti11 by. This is why the founders of the ~ n i i e d States of America commented that we had been given republic if we can keep it. Each time a btatement like John Kerry's goes unchallenged, we lose a 1 more of our republic and our l'reeclor~ No, John Kerry is not interested in carrying this principle forward at something like this? John Kerry for educational loans, young servitude. This should be the
CNDl'06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn
Ameri Corp Kat

AFF ***&T States CP - MUST READ***
*"*"BAM!!!!A/T States CP - Fed F nding Key to multiply Local Funding - states can't s~ Eisner, 05
LEVERAGING FEDERAL DOLLARS TO MAKE PROGRAMS MORE SUSTA Using federal dollars to generate more local is critical to AmeriCorps' success. A decade of experience 11, that a local program's success at raising fudds to match its federal grant is a key measure of its strer~eth and viability. Over the past four years, CNCS grahtees have raised nearly $1.5 billion in matchingfunds, or about $36( ye_ar, to support their national service programs. That nonfederal revenue stream adds a critical element of sust to their programs. Matching grants are j~.rstqne of the ways the corporation uses its leverage to make grassroots pi more viable over the long term. Usinp rnobilize other volunteers, adiscussed, is a p r i m examp degree to which local groups resources that service participants create, build, improve their communities after participating ir. is another, as is the extent to which AmeriCorps or other service programs. I
CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshtcyn

I
1
Givic Engagement Down Now
Civic engagement down now
Against this backdrop, were today's young adults at all distinctive on the eve of the terrorist attacks? The answer, yes. The key is to be found in the delnographic distinction between "cohort" effects and ".qenerational1'effem. Cr represent a snapshot of different age groups at the same historical moment, while generations represent the same at different historical moments. If we compare generations rather than cohorts--that is, if we compare today's yo[! not with today's older adults, but with young, adults of the past--we find evidence of diminished civic attachment. early 1970s, about one-half of 18-to 29-year-oldsvotedpresider Some of the basic facts are well known. In t l ~ e elections. By 2000, fewer than one-third did,, The same pattern holds for congressional elections--about one-third 1970s, compared with fewer than one-fifth i,l 1998. Studies show that every significant indicator of political engagement has fallen each year since the 1960s.
)I

Competitiveness Key to Economv
Ameri Corp Kar
Competitiveness Results in a More troductive Economy Pianta, Economic Analyst @ Intemat onal Labor Organization, 1998 http://www.itcilo.it/english/actrav/teleprn/glo bal/ilo/arthhtrn
be reape# The gains in economic efficiency, growth add employment promised by increased competitiveness focus is not on a static process of redistribution of market shares, but when is on a dynamic process of creation o h resources. technologjcal innovation, develodment of new markets, new skills and competences. These are the pro which make cornpetiveness a positive force in economic change, capable to sustain enlployment growth. In aggregate terms, within a capacity and employment. If this is not t h e tllt productivity growth, allowing space investment and restructuring. simply be a redistribution of market The characteristics of long term positive sum game.
Competitiveness Creates a More St PD Jonson, 2003
Foundation for Economic Growth
growth and wealth creation through three processes: generation, application and diffusion. Close_gxa~nination sk knowledge diffusion - or the transmission odexisting knowledge, technical expertise or technology between firmi and nations - makes the largest contribution lo econo1mic growth. Australia conducts a disproportionate amoudt of its research in publicly funded research agencies such as the COI Scientific and Industrial Research organisation (CSI RO) and at 39 Universities. Encouraging more research with business sector, or at least funded by busineds would improve results and is one obiective of policy. I t is howeyer obvious that strong Intellectual Propem ( I P management ~ in publicly funded research organisations is critical to I development and growth of the innovation e?ionomy.
o;tsm u aql !Alas!9a~d ~ ~~ E ~M J! A
-a3uau!wo.1d 01 u e u l s n ~ jq3no~q ~ j .~sol mq pey a ~ e J q~ ~ ! L adomg U U I O ~p LI u! sqo! ~ u!ea [[!M saleqs paqun ayy ) E ~ J sueaur JapJo s!y~ pue 'saueldr!e ayeru sue:,!~aurv ayl pur! sueado~ng ,s~ap.ro aylllu u ! ~ p o X - s ~ a ~ n p o .s'fl$eq1 ~d pa3unouue slpnes aq, uaqM nddeq os u o l u ! [ ~ pue ~asdn os sueado~ng l-B~au~o uo!ll!q 93 -1ojJapIo ue!qeJv ! p n e S M m d / i l apr!Jjjo p u g aq) jnoqe JeqM Jna -4saq a y / t i m o s a .r!aql ~ du!$o~ap ;iq sJauu!m $no auro:, s a ~ ~ ~ u n yo~ : ,o g payew you saop e 3 ! elso3 ~ 1eqj h ~ a u R 3 e u 1 i u p Mo.18 jou saop seueueq suodlu! e q ~ a w aJaqM v .es!y e s d 3 pue SJJE-JS pa)!un ay, uaanzlaq apmljo ass3 j.uon s! uewdn-IY~ l a ~!.a3eld n s3 aye$ ] a aleuogeJ s!y$ ' ~ u a ~ x aa u o s 03 an4 qznoylly
-
!-
~ E M sy
-a3qut?Ap~ a~!~r?.redwo~ j o s3!rueuAp 1q1SJ3LILI!M aq q ~ o q ue3 s~au2red ;i'u!p~~l sq pup sale)S paqun aq$ sso s,ayo3 S A E M I ~~sour[e s! u!ed ~,!sdad%asdad pue e [ ( > 3 - ~ 3 0 u5aM)aqmijiladw 3 ay!l IOU sl uedef pue sa)eJS pal!un aql uaaMlaq apeJL .awed ~uns-o~az T! 1 ~ ~s 1m 1 5 ~ aq e J~J~ .sju!od J a a q l ;ru!yeul A q s!q$ anold 01 sldunalle aH -Jaylo qma q l ! ~ uo!$!$ad~uo3 qurouo3a u! JOU 1 -yo sar~$ur~oc~ ~o!euraip Jafeur 1e3r~3e.1d e sr? asnmaq Allrs s! ssauan~$~I)aduto:, Inoqe u~a3uo3 J E ~ spualuo3 J ueru3n.q
. 1

Americorps Negative PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Americorps Negative PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CNDI '06 Lin, Amett, Burshteyn

Ameri Corps Kat/i

CNDI '06 Ein, Arnett, Burshteyn

A/$ Civic Engagement Adv.

for AmeriCorps are uneccessary and wastefiil.

There are several problems with this

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn Politics Tradeoff Turn

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

A/T Improves Communities

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

AmeriCorps fi KatlA~ Can't Solve Democracy

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

help one another and solve our own problems, we lei

CNDI '06 Lin, Amett, Burshteyn

Ameri Corps h i K at/A -

CNDl606 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

AmeriCorps 1' Katlii

of volunteerism. #1564. June 28,2002. "America

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Americorps is a Failure, It Doesn't

~d bstantially Increase Volunteerism

Ameri Corps 1'

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

A/T Disast:er Relief eriCorps Fails

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Other Programs Solve Other Programs Solve Natural

CNDlC06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

I Other Programs Solve

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

TURN: Government Programs Mary Theroux, Vice RESPONSES TO KATRINA: http://www.independent

CNDI '06 Lin, Amett, Rurshteyn

Gov ~ b n t r Makes o~ Disasters Worse

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Arneri Corps Katli

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshtcyn

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Makes Kids Dumber

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Aineri Corps I<at/-/

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Ameri C'orps Kath Fraud Turns Education

CNDZ '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

U$ Competitiveness High Now

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Busshteyn

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn Turn 4 Competitiven~ess Kills Economy

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Ameri Corps I< atli

corporation's val ue-added.

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Ameri COI-ps Katli

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Ameri Corps iCutli

A/T Solvency AmeriCorps Ineffective

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

Arneri Corps 1Cat/,{

~meri~ora Volunteers b Drop Out/Are Criminals

CNDI '06 Lin, Arnett, Burshteyn

A r n e r i ~ o i Makes ~s Thines Worse - General

tden- overn nor

CNDI '06 Lin, Ari~ett, Burshteyn

Ameri Corps KatL