All hands on deck. A call for national service.

[c-rational]

What about the idea of starting mandatory national service. All Americans are required to serve. If you want to go into the military fine. If not we need to fix our infrastructure (maintenance included), repair our national parks, provide jobs, and make all Americans a little more equal. This should also help get out the vote and should include civics lessons and mandatory voter registration.

[Voltaire2]

1. How about no.

Infrastructure work is a source of good paying jobs across the country. How about we take back all the tax cuts the filthy rich have given themselves over the last 40 years and start using our government to do things that actually benefit everyone!

[c-rational]

4. Not saying we do not need an Infrastructure Project. The American Society of Civil Engineers

(of which I am a member) pegs the cost at 4 trillion dollars. This would require lots of specialized skills. Maintenance less so. As a society we now build public works projects at great cost, we do not maintain them properly and then rebuild them at even greater costs. It has something to do with arbitrage rules and bonding, i.e. why funds are not set aside for maintenance. Simply painting bridges works wonders. It is the reason why NY bridges which are in the TBTA are maintained and the east river bridges are allowed to rot..

[Blue_true]

14. I have to agree.

If we have national service people doing infrastructure work, I see building companies firing workers and abusing the service people.

I generally have concerns about compulsory service. At some point, the service people take jobs of people that were earning real government pay checks for performing a service to taxpayers. When I think of where compulsory service people can be used, I just end up seeing jobs being taken from people that are now earning a paycheck, all to create more profit for owners like the Education Secretary, people that own government service businesses and would soak up service people to avoid paying salaries and benefits.
National service should continue to be voluntary.

[DinahMoeHum]

52. Plus the unions would scream bloody murder.

n/t

[bluecollar2]

112. No they wouldn't...n/t

[DinahMoeHum]

118. Please read what Kilgore has to say (Posts 101 and 108_)

Union people will regard these workers as SCABS.

[bluecollar2]

119. Former union member myself

Scabs cross picket lines and work struck work.

National service doesn't necessarily have to be non-union.

[brush]

28. Why reject it? Both can be done. The CCC during FDR's admin...

worked well to put the unemployed to work.

Despite trump's trumpeting of how great the economy is, unemployment is still high in major segments of the Democratic Party's base.

Of course the skilled, professional jobs can be funded as well. I mean if there's money for a trillion dollar funnel up of tax dollars to the rich, if we win back at least the House, Dems can sponsor this.

[kentuck]

33. America should question how capitalism works in this country.

They make their own rules over the will of the people.

[JDC]

2. Here you go

https://www.nationalservice.gov/special-initiatives/days-service

[Moostache]

3. I have loved the idea for years...National Service could make this nation heal old wounds...

It can't happen because the idea of healing divisions does not help people who stay in power only through fear, deception and those very divisions.

I remember President Obama hinting at such programs and having them characterized by the right as "Obama's private army" instead of a civilian service corp.

College tuition in exchange for military service via the GI Bill is NOT a controversy...why applying a different standard of service to the same reward should be revolutionary or cause clutching of the pearls and vapors is beyond me...

[Ms. Toad]

42. Because every bill that has been introduced has required (military) basic training

for all citizens.

For those of us who are conscientious objectors to military service, preparing for war is just as offensive as engaging in it.

I have no objection to requiring a year of service, so long as civlian service is an option open to all, without a prerequisite of miltary basic training, and without coercion to choose military service - AND - all who choose military service receive the same pay and benefits as those in military service.

[brush]

48. I think the OP is suggesting nat'l service with military as an option...

not a necessity.

[Ms. Toad]

91. My point is that there have been numerous bills introduced

Every single bill that requires national service has permitted civilian service as an option ONLY after going through military basic training. (1) Many people are unaware of both the bills that have already been introduced and that they have universally required military basic training, and (2) I have no reason to believe any future billwould be different.

[brush]

102. We'll see. I don't see a Dem sponsored bill requiring military service...

ever happening. It wouldn't go over with the base.

And there are precedents in history, not require national service, which I don't agree with, but voluntary programs.

FDR's WPA and CCC didn't and neither did Kennedy's Peace Corp.

Such a program could boost the economy, upgrade the infrastructure and get a lot of the unemployed working.

It amazes me that there are so many automatic, knee jerk, negative reactions to this. Details could be worked out such a bill massaged and made workable. Of course it would have to happen under a Democratic controlled Congress.

[Ms. Toad]

109. It's hardly knee jerk. I've been working on this issue for decades.

Approximately 5 decades. Including through periods when Congress and/or the White House were controlled by Democrats.

Neither party is terribly receptive to conscientious objection. There have been a number of bills (with sponsors from both parties) that require military basic training, regardless of the form of ultimate service.

[c-rational]

59. Agreed.

[braddy]

5. We aren't peasant slaves to build roads and clear ditches for the government.

[c-rational]

10. No we are citizens - teacher's assistants, health care helpers, park helpers, and many more.

[braddy]

17. It's spelled Slave I don't want the government to enslave us.

[Hekate]

70. Do you think of the military draft as slavery?

[Midwestern Democrat]

78. Conscription is the most undemocratic thing a representative government can do - (obviously

dictatorships do far worse things - murder, torture, political imprisonment, etc) - thus, in this country, we've
required the government to have one hell of a vital reason to do it - the drafts during wartime could be justified as a temporary, necessary tool in the name of the security of the nation - the draft became permanent (in the name of the Cold War) after WWII, but eventually Vietnam killed it off - enough people felt the government had abused its power of conscription in that case.

[Hekate]

83. I tend to agree -- with you

It's braddy's insistance that makes me wonder-- about him

[brush]

29. You can't be serious. There are still many unemployed people...

who would welcome a chance to work.

There should also be a skilled, professional aspect to such a program as well to design and build our rotting bridges, sewers, water systems, roads and power grid.

Ever heard of FDR's CCC? It helped us to imerge from the Great Depression.

[braddy]

30. WWII got us out of the Depression and we aren't in the Depression and were those men forced into

the CCC?

[brush]

31. The depression lasted for many years. The WPA and CCC put many to...

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2018, 03:35 PM - Edit history (1)

work during all those years. WWll was the capper.

Do you know of those two agencies?

There are murals in many post offices around the country that were produced by the WPA. They are still beautifying those buildings.

[brush]

49. No one was forced into the CCC. It was the great depression, remember?

People were desperate for work and jobs were coveted. Matter of fact, everybody couldn't get in.

[braddy]

53. So it is not relevant to this thread for several major reasons.

[brush]

54. Ahhh...saying that the CCC was forced labor isn't relevant.

[braddy]

57. I knew they weren't forced, and they and the depression aren't relevant to this threads proposal, or

to our times.

[brush]

74. Depends on what your perspective is. If you're unemployed with...

no much happening on horizon it's relevant.

Many with with a job and steady income forget that there are millions without. Frankly, that's supposed to be what being a Democrat is about—being not just concerned about self but of others not so fortunate.

[braddy]

76. Employers are desperate for workers and working for welfare is held as a no go, we are not in the

depression and we don't need to force Americans into slavery for the government, this thread is about forced labor.

[brush]

81. You sure you're on the right site? No one is talking about forced labor.

Come back to reality.

[braddy]

82. Are you on the right thread? ""mandatory national service. All Americans are required to serve.""

That is forced labor for the state.

[brush]

86. I'm in favor of it being voluntary. Calm the fuck down with the slavery..

and forced labor ridiculousness.

[braddy]

88. Voluntary isn't what the thread is about and voluntary is called a job, we have plenty of those now,

this isn't the Great Depression.

[Hekate]

75. We are in all but name, when the majority of Americans can't even lay their hands on $400 ...

...in an emergency, when the majority of Americans are one paycheck away from eviction and homelessness, when the majority of Americans are one major illness away from bankruptcy.

Barack Obama tried his damndest for 8 years, swimming upstream all the way against a GOP majority. Hillary would have carried the Democratic vision forward, and she won, too. We've got Trumpco instead, busily installing kleptocratic fascism.

I would not try to promote any national service under current circs -- but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

[braddy]

77. LOL, this is getting silly, we don't need to enslave Americans.

[Hekate]

79. You are the only one in this thread who blathers on about slavery.Nobody is proposing any such thing

...and you know it. For some reason you seem determined to distract from the topic (which has been brought up in my very American lifetime numerous times) by being as offensive as possible. I wonder why that is.

[braddy]

80. Slaves to the state, I'm against it.

[Hekate]

84. You have a rather broad definition then. Are you a Libertarian, perhaps?

[braddy]

85. LOL, no, and I didn't know that was required to disagree with being drafted as a slave to the gov.

[Hekate]

67. My grandfather was an electrician in the CCC after he lost his business in the Depression...

He was part of the advance crew that built the CCC camps, which if I understand correctly some still stand today.

He got paid, he sent money home to the wife and kids, and inasmuch as he could have picked up his toolbox and walked away, I do not think "slavery" was a term that applied.

[eShirl]

6. mandatory like a draft

[c-rational]

11. Yes, I believe it should be mandatory like jury duty. I see it as an equalizer.

[leftofcool]

13. But, it wouldn't be

Whites get the higher paying cushy jobs while Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans are stuck picking cotton or some other menial job with low pay. No thanks.

[Hortensis]

16. OR, like many New Deal jobs, it could be used

to ELEVATE and EQUALIZE. Very easily and should be.

Although conservative opposition was ferocious, many New Deal jobs were filled with POC and other minorities who were trained with skills for jobs they'd never been allowed to hold before and some of whom were even put in positions of authority over whites for the first time ever.

Which way it would go really depends entirely on which party administered it: the Democratic Party, with our commitment to equality of all men, or the Republican Party, which in this era has become a white nationalist party committed to erasing equality.

I'm not supporting any idea of national service in this era. It's too likely the fascistic-trending Republican Party could continue control of government and turn these corps into brown shirts. But generally speaking, I think refusing to include hammers and screw drivers in a tool box because they could be used to hurt someone is not a winning move.

[braddy]

19. You left out Asians, would they be in the offices or the fields?

[MineralMan]

20. Well, the Republicans would put them all on a slow boat

to China, most likely.

[braddy]

21. Would the Asians be in the fields or the offices?

[MineralMan]

22. They'd be sent out of the country, as I said.

To China. By the Republicans.

[braddy]

23. Why then and not now, why China?

[MineralMan]

25. Do think about that a little longer, OK?

[braddy]

26. National service will lead to the deportation of all Asian Americans to China, got it.

[brush]

32. Come on. It's tongue in cheek. And we know even the repugs would...

not go that far.

[braddy]

38. It was the continued answer to my question responding to post 13, which left out the Asians,

My question was which group would the Asians would be in, the fields or the offices?

[brush]

40. Disregard the naysayers. If such a program was ever installed...

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2018, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)

it would happened only under a Dem-controlled Congress so the skill set of each individual would come into play and the Democratic Party is a party of inclusion and equality, theoretically.

And since this would be a national service program it would be for post-high school/college age youth who haven't yet established much of a career.

I like the idea, sort of harkens back to the CCC, WPA and the Peace Corp.

I would make it voluntary though with a job training component to it, with military service only as an option for the gung-ho segment.

[fescuerescue]

46. So from each according to their abilities

Well that is half the battle right there.

[brush]

47. I wouldn't go so far as the communism/socialism meme...

I like it as a voluntary program that would increase jobs on more than one front. There is plenty of needed, immediate work in the CCC, WPA vein, but also a skilled, professional aspect of the program could put all the unemployed/under employed engineers, architects and others to work designing and building and upgrading our outmoded infrastructure.

It would be a win/win on the job front. IMO it should be voluntary and have a job training component also as there are still thousands not working who would jump at the chance to work, get experience and training.

Just think of all the work needed—railroads, bridges, sewers, waterlines, airports, power grid and on and on. Years and years worth of good jobs that would be an economic boom, and which would then require the subsequent continous maintenance, thus creating more jobs.

[MineralMan]

7. Well, that's an idea that gets brought up from time to time.

On the surface, it sounds sort of OK. But, then, when you look closer, it's very worrisome. For example, let's say this was in force right now, during the Trump administration.

OK People! Form two lines!

White people on the right. People of color on the left. People in the right line get to help out in some of the nicest communities in the country, improving parks, working in day-care facilities and doing other fun projects. Folks in the left line get to pick crops, work on road construction with shovels and picks and perform other much-needed services.

[brush]

34. We know the repugs would never start such a program.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of the poster—as an equalizer and a way to help the many still unemployed of our party's base.

It would only be even broached by a Dem-controlled Congress.

[MineralMan]

35. In any case, it would be abused from the very start.

It. Will. Not. Happen.

It. Should. Not. Happen.

[brush]

37. I see it differently but post your reasons. Programs like this have worked before.

CCC, WPA, Peace Corp.

Service to the country is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if there is an alternative to the military.

[MineralMan]

39. Not in this country, they haven't.

We have never had a mandatory national service requirement. It is not something that fits our national psyche. The first thing that would happen would be a demand from wealthy Americans that their offspring be exempted from it. The second would be massive resistance from people who were about to be conscripted into the program.

The entire thing would collapse. Either that or only poor, non-white people would be forced into this servitude system.

Look back to your 18th birthday. Think about it. When I turned 18, I was liable for the draft. In fact, little more than a year later, I enlisted into the USAF because I got my draft notice. I spent four years doing what the USAF wanted me to do. It wasn't what I would have chosen to do, although it was not altogether awful. I ended up being sent to a total immersion Russian language program and then to do interesting things.

I could have been sent to assemble nuclear weapons, though, or to load armaments on planes. I was fortunate.

Involuntary servitude of any kind is anathema in this country. We will not have it. We would not accept it. Period.

[brush]

41. Ahhh...there's an alternative to the military.

And I would prefer it to be voluntary, not mandatory.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. We have long favored this

[NightWatcher]

9. And then trump could get his golf courses tended and mowed for free...

[leftofcool]

12. Nope!

[shraby]

15. They tried that during the depression. Called them the CC camps.

Some were fine with it, but my dad worked at one and when they paid them, the government person in charge of paying treated the workers as if it was coming out of his own pockets.
The last check he got he told them to shove it and wouldn't take it because of their attitude.
I suppose if it could be collected after all this time, there would be a bit of interest added to it.

Some of the government people in charge of the projects were real a**holes just like today.

[Hekate]

87. Civialian Conservation Corps. There was also Works Project Administration.

Sorry it didn't work out for your dad -- but you know (I am sure ) that we have all worked for *holes at one time or another. I myself still have very strong feelings about being a single mother of tots trying to make the paycheck last to the end of the month while my male boss screamed at me every day. I hope your dad found another job and I hope his boss found himself out of a job.

[kcr]

18. Make voting a national holiday and make it mandatory

I have no idea where the idea that forced labor will somehow magically create more social equality came from. I'm just extremely grateful that it will never happen.

[brush]

36. Who said anything about forced labor?

Too many of us with stable jobs seem to forget that there are million of people, party of our party's base, who would welcome a chance to work.

And such a program would also have a skilled, professional aspect to it to not maintain but design and build bridges, roads, sewers, railroads,power grids, airports etc.—you know, bring our country's infrastructure up to 21st century standards.

And think of the enduring boom that would bring to the economy.

[tomp]

89. No mandatory voting....

....unless “none of the above” is an option.

[SamKnause]

24. No thanks.

[catrose]

27. I've thought so for a long time

We should do some service for our country, and it could be a way to provide support, training, and experience for many people.

That said, I realize the ways the system and the people it's supposed to serve could be abused.

[Ms. Toad]

43. Only if the choices are equally rewarded

(pay and benefits) and the civilian option (tpically civillian service AKA alternative service for conscientious objectors is paid far less, and does not entitle one to any of the benefits military service generates) and only if it does not require military basic training for civilian service (as all of the bills in recent memory have proposed).

[brush]

50. Make it voluntary with benefits and pay all equal whether non-military...

or military. Also add a job training component and get the unemployed but wanting work working and the economy booming from the decades of work it will take to upgrade our outmoded infrastructure of rusting bridges, power grids, railroads, sewers, water lines, roads etc. It could be on a scale of what Eisenhower did in the 50s with building the interstate highway system.

That put millions to work and the economy of the 50s boomed like never before.

[brooklynite]

51. Military salaries aren't economically competitive...

...because they don't reflect housing and meals. Are you suggesting that the non-military people should be obliged to live in camps during their service?

[brush]

55. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Those details are not unsolvable problems.

We have the talent in this country to accomplish that and implement such a program.

[Ms. Toad]

92. It should at least be an option.

In general, civillian service (of the sort that is accepted as alternative service for COs) has not been rewarded at the level of military service - in large part because it is intended to discourage people from following their conscience as to military service.

[c-rational]

62. Agreed. All would receive the same pay...whatever option chosen.

[fescuerescue]

90. Well that doesn't seem fair

Why should someone at the top of their career be paid the same as entry level?

[Ms. Toad]

94. There are actually progressive organizations that structure their pay that way

The secretary receivest the same salary as the top executive. The idea is that everyone deserves to be rewarded for usng their skills to serve the organization, and that everyone's skills are required to run the organization - so we should not ecconomically value any one skill over another.

[fescuerescue]

99. Sounds interesting

I suppose if I were independently wealthy, and wanted to contribute my time to an effort, I would sign up for that.

Unfortunately I'm not so that's not a place that I would want to work at, as I definitely need a steady income.

[Ms. Toad]

110. Their view is that everyone needs a steady income,

Not just those at the top of the food change, and that everyone who is contributing to the work of the organization should be paid enough to live on. When you pay the "higher up" individuals less, you can pay the the jobs that are less frequently economically rewarded more.

[fescuerescue]

115. yea I get it

I don't disagree with any of that.

While few organizations compare to McDonalds in terms of size and dollars, I did some math a year or two ago on it. I was arguing that the McDonalds CEO is overpaid, $15 million is a ridiculous salary and that it should be distributed to the employees. What surprised me though, is that if you took his salary, and divided equally amongst the 235,000 employees, it would only equate to a 2 cent an hour increase.


In this example, you've gotten me thinking for the last several days. I think the motivations would have to be totally different...and change of mindset.

I've been trying to imagine a change of mindset where pay isn't linked to achievement or work and it's actually a pretty foreign concept. I have to say that I wouldn't be happy after busting my tail to accomplish xyz, by working long hours, coming up with good ideas and dealing all the crap we have to deal with at work (thats everywhere)....only to see someone rewarded the same who comes in late, leaves early and generally doesn't contribute much.

Is there an example company where the pay is flat across the board? I'd love to read about this. I love the idea in theory...till that theory applies to me personally. I'm really curious about this.

[Ms. Toad]

120. Bread for the World was

when my father worked there several years ago. I believe they moved away from that model sometime after he left. The pay was based, to some extent, on familiy size (i.e. actual economic need) - if I recall correctly.

I'll see if I can dig information out about it.

[fescuerescue]

44. So we eliminate all those high paying jobs

Put those folks on unemployment line.

Then force young people to do for free, or low pay.

But we get some civics lessons out of it!

[c-rational]

63. Not at all. I for one do not believe the unemployment numbers given. I believe there are a lot

more people out there that would like work or service. At say $20 per hour you are talking a $40K per year job. Not asking for something for nothing.

[B2G]

45. How will you enforce the mandatory part? Nt

[c-rational]

64. Good question. Maybe the same way the Selective Service was run.

[B2G]

65. What if you have a full time job(s)?

Small kids? Are a caretaker for someone?

Will everyone with a valid excuse for being too busy be exempt?

Sounds a lot like work for welfare at that point.

[c-rational]

68. Make service typically between 18-25. There will always be exceptions.

[B2G]

69. So college is out. Nt

[jcboon]

56. Sure, full-time, benefits including pension.

No discrimination in hiring and an employment guarantee until retirement.

[roamer65]

58. No.

I don’t like the idea of forced labor.

How about paying a living wage?

[Thunderbeast]

60. Great idea!

This could be structured to compliment, not replace valued government employees.

Our National Forests are in desperate need of understory fuel mitigation to prevent the huge fires that are consuming them. The network of trails built by the CCC needs bridges and stablization. New trails can help relieve the stress of over-use.

Comprehensive plans for child care and elder care could provide needed supports to working families. A CCC program could help provide the manpower.

Classroom aides could provide individual reading time to help children become better learners.

Most importantly, mandatory service would provide a sense of understanding for young people that the fruits of 240 years of our country are the products of MANY who provided unselfish service for the benefit of all of us. Our obligations to build a better nation trancsend just paying taxes. It is not fair to outsource the dirty work to only those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

The draft that I grew up with was unfair. A more equitable and universal service obligation would bring benefits to all.

[c-rational]

71. Thank you. I like your structure also, and the title universal service obligation.

[Oneironaut]

61. Required? Meh. A new WPA wouldn't be a bad idea, though.

Also, filling our military with people who don’t want to be there is highly detrimental to the military's strength. Just the WPA would be fine.

[handmade34]

66. good idea

will take a lot of brainstorming to make it work well and fairly... I am sorry so many people off the cuff give the idea a resounding NO...

I think one of the problems with this Country is lack of civic mindedness... I support mandatory voting and service of some sort... this is an idea that would be best discussed around a table with coffee and doughnuts or pizza and beer

[c-rational]

72. Agreed it would take a lot of work to make it work well and fairly, and a task worth undertaking imo

[Hekate]

73. Right now we need to get rid of the GOP. If they try their hands at this it will be a nightmare...

I have a lot of thoughts on national service, and think there is merit in discussing it. Other democracies do it with their young people just after high school (odd how at least one person in this thread is ready to go to battle over the idea of established middle aged people being required to leave job and home -- no, that's not how it works).

"National service" is a broad category that includes a possible stint in the military but provides a lot of alternatives on the ground. Young people 18 to 22 are ripe for learning useful job skills, and at that age are still idealistic. The Army promises an education and benefits -- so should a civilian alternative.

Look to countries that have already tried this idea, and how they do it.

[JI7]

93. No , there are already many volunteer programs out there

in fact many people would like to have time for those things .

if they had decent income and were not overworked they would volunteer more.

in our current system/culture what you are proposing would be something the wealthy would get out of.

[c-rational]

97. This is not a call for voluntary service. All are included and you get paid. One year of service

for say 17 - 25 year olds. If you want to serve in the military fine, if not another public service job, be it teachers aid, health care aid, work in say the Army Corps of Engineers or the National Park Service, or many other needs which this country has. Most especially the wealthy must serve. This is intended to serve as an equalizer.

[JI7]

104. no, it's just not realistic.

[dembotoz]

95. Would wealthy kids be included? Doubt it

[c-rational]

96. Yes. Everyone is included. That is the point.

[fescuerescue]

100. I thought the point was to fix things that need fixing in this country.

Sounds like it's more about cheap forced labor.

yikes.

[JI7]

105. yes, they will get "jobs" serving us embassy in France

and things like that where it will actually just be vacation.

while most without money and connections will join the military or cleaning out prisons or something like that.

[dembotoz]

111. Mitt Romney got Paris money counts bullshit walks

[KentuckyWoman]

98. NO.

All that will happen is Halliburton gets free labor from the masses while rich kids "serve" by taking naps and grabbing women in the offices of Daddy's business partners.

It won't work.

[c-rational]

106. No work for private companies and all must serve, that is the point.

[Kilgore]

101. My SIL says no way without a strike

He is a member of the Operating Engineers local and views them as scabs taking union jobs.

[c-rational]

107. Do not know what an SIL is, but I am pro union. This is not meant to compete with private sector

jobs. It is a means for all to understand they are part of the United States and hopefully helps keep the American Dream alive.

[Kilgore]

108. SIL Son in Law

He is very much pro union and looks at non members doing union jobs as taking away his livelihood.

I suspect any attempt to use the proposed workforce on infrastructure jobs will be met with resistance. For example, put yourself in the shoes of a displaced union painter. Think he/she will be happy?

[byronius]

103. I'm on board with that.

I'd also like to see a rotating police force.

[Orsino]

113. I will not indenture myself to a government that controls so many aspects of my life.

National service is fine, and should include things like doctoring, teaching and first-responding. You lose me when you talk about making it manadatory. I think that would be a terrible mistake even if we had cleaned up our government, freeing it from the billionaires' control, and we have not even begun that work.

[bluecollar2]

114. I think it's a good idea.

I think it's a tough idea to enact in that one has to balance the different interests.

Religious or moral convictions about military service for instance but, although complex, it is doable.

For instance, provide college funds for someone to become a doctor. Upon completion of the schooling national service might require that doctor to serve in the VA or some other civil service role...e.g. state or county medical facility...

Volunteer Fire Departments etc. Can always use paramedics.

[KG]

116. no thanks.

for one thing, with historically low unemployment what's the point.

and infrastructure should be built the old fashioned way, good paying union jobs.

[c-rational]

117. I disagree with the unemployment figures published, but the idea for national service is not just

jobs. It is also intended to create a shared sense of community. As a civil engineer and pro union advocate, I agree that building/rebuilding our infrastructure needs skill. The American Society of Civil Engineers presently pegs the cost at 4 trillion. National service cannot solve that problem. That needs to be tackled separately and the sooner the better based on the decay curve concept.