Prometheus 6

In response to such points made in public comments, the administration shrank even further from an ethic of reciprocity. Caring for the vulnerable, it explained, "does not provide a direct benefit to the community."

That REALLY explains a lot.

A War on Community Service
By Noah Zatz
Saturday, April 12, 2008; A15

One of the latest victims of the Bush administration's continuing assault on ordinary language is the term "community service." You might have thought that community service was about serving others, but apparently what it's really about is serving oneself.

That's the message from the Department of Health and Human Services, delivered in new regulations governing work requirements in a program known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF. TANF provides cash and services to families that are temporarily unable to make ends meet.

The work requirements of the program were sold to the public as a "social contract" when President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress created TANF. The community supports people in their hour of need and people receiving assistance give back to the community. That's why Congress wrote "community service" into the law as one way to satisfy work requirements.

But that high-minded talk about "reciprocity" has gone out the window. According to the new regulations, community service is just another job-training program. Traditional forms of community service -- including many of those that are most beneficial to people in need -- don't count anymore, unless they are "designed to improve the employability" of those performing the services. But enhancing our own job skills is not the primary purpose of ladling soup for the hungry, beautifying our public lands, consoling the sick, bringing joy to the elderly and mentoring the young. Serving others is.

The administration's interpretation not only mocks the spirit of public service but also mangles the law. The statute has other provisions for training and work experience. The regulations render the separate inclusion of "community service" superfluous.

The deeper question here is why families struggle economically. The administration's approach assumes away the possibility that hardworking, capable people might temporarily lack full-time employment because of a recession, a plant closing, a natural disaster or job discrimination, or because a family member has a serious illness or disability and needs care. Without debating the causes of poverty overall, the question is simply whether "get a job" or "get more skills" is always the answer for everyone. For this administration, the person is the problem every time.