The Democratic presidential candidates are trying to gain support and distinguish themselves by coming up with "innovative policy alternatives," whether it comes in the form of Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax, Corey Booker's housing plan, or Bernie Sanders' latest idea to cap interest rates on consumer loans. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is throwing in his policy idea: expanding national service.
Buttigieg's national service plan argues that the demand for national service opportunities (e.g., Americorps, Peace Corps, Teach for America) exceeds supply. In hopes to bolster civic society and social cohesion, Buttigieg would not only like to increase funding for such organizations as Americorps, but would also like to start fund new service opportunities to address climate change, as well as help minority and rural communities. Buttigieg has not put a price tag on his program. However, Associated Press estimates that it would cost $20 billion over 10 years (or an average of $2 billion per annum), an amount that would be more than double what the government spends on national service. Per his website, Buttigieg's intent is to "create a pathway towards a universal, national expectation of service for all 4 million high school graduates every year." Buttigieg's plan brings up two primary questions: 1) Should high school graduates be conscripted into national service upon graduation?, and 2) Does the government have any business funding these service programs in the first place?
Should National Service be Mandatory?
In a free society, people own themselves, their property, and their labor. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin aptly points out, "Millions of people would be forced to do jobs required by the government on pain of criminal punishment if they disobey." Mandatory national service, whether military or civil, is an illiberal form of social engineering that goes against the American experience of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."
If the goal is to shift the the United States towards greater social cohesion, why stop at national service? Why not stifle freedom of religion, speech, or press to foster national cohesion? Also, if this is such a wonderful idea, why stop at those who are age 18 to 24? Why not force everyone to do it every few years in order to revitalize that sense of social cohesion? After all, volunteer rates are arguably low for adults of all ages, not just those age 18 to 24 (BLS). Short of an exigent circumstance like Israel, a small country that is constantly being attacked, there is no moral justification for national service, regardless of whether it is military or civilian service.
A majority of Americans aged 18 to 30 are against a mandatory national service, at 57 percent disapproving (Gallup). Would you realistically expect the quality of work to be at its finest if most of the people conscripted are against it? Much like we observed with the draft, conscription is bound to bring in unqualified and unmotivated individuals, thereby diminishing the quality of work and the spirit of volunteerism.
Somin additionally argues that not only is it immoral, but also unconstitutional because it would violate the Thirteenth Amendment. Additionally, it would require an unprecedented expansion of the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper clauses to make it work.
Should the Government Fund National Service Programs?
Let's say that Buttigieg removes the mandate from his plan, and it's simply the government allocating more funds towards service programs. It's still a problem. One issue is that "unmet social needs" (or let's be more blunt and think of much of them as human wants) are infinite because humans always want more. Labor supply, on the other hand, is limited and not free. How we allocate that labor is a matter of opportunity cost.
There is an implicit assumption that "public service" is more noble or even generates greater benefit than the private sector. People can be generous with their time and help out others without a national service program or serving "the general public," such as helping out friends, families, or neighbors (e.g., babysitting, contributing to family income, caring for sick relatives).
Also, there is an issue with a one-size-fits all mentality here. For some professions, such as professional athletes, a one-year delay at age 18 would be detrimental. Others would rather take on an apprenticeship or go to college. Others might have to jump in the workforce right away to support their family. Is a high school graduate conducting a public service project for a year worth delaying thousands of young adults from going to college or entering the workforce? Who is to say that national service is nothing more than a distraction from career or workforce development?
In terms of efficiency, how would the government use this free or low-cost, unskilled and inexperienced labor better than the private sector? Can the non-profit world realistically absorb these unseasoned, temporary workers? Even if you point to some success case studies of certain national service programs, there is still the matter of scale, not to mention the politicization of serving and volunteering. I have two additional concerns: a crowding out effect for private charity efforts and private capital (e.g., Sherlock et Gravelle, 2009) and whether the government could effectively manage such an expanded program, as is illustrated by the Government Accountability Office's 2017 report on the mismanagement of Corporation of National and Community Service (CNCS) grant management for national service programs. Another question about intended consequences that would have to be answered regards life events. People are putting off such events as marriage, buying a home, having children. What sort of effects would a one-to-two-year delay cause?
Conclusion
It doesn't matter whether this national service program is military or civilian, mandatory or optional. Expanding on national service programs has issues on moral, constitutional, and economic levels. Using the sentiment of trying to help out others should not be used for political gain or to advance a political agenda, regardless of how well its intentions are. It would be nice to see greater social cohesion. The thing is that we are individuals. As individuals, our circumstances and skill sets are unique, and as such, how we contribute to society does not fit neatly into a box. I would rather see such cohesion at a more local and tangible level than at a centralized, federal level. Especially without particulars from Buttigieg, we should have concern for pause before even considering such a proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment