As a midwestern Republican, I oppose gutting national service
As a small-government conservative who supports a leaner and more efficient federal bureaucracy, I have cheered President Donald Trump's efforts to identify and eliminate fraud and waste in Washington. We've been spending ourselves into oblivion and getting remarkably little in return.
But there's a difference between common-sense cuts to underperforming or bloated agencies and haphazardly eliminating every program a software engineer fails to appreciate, as the U.S. DOGE Service, or Department of Government Efficiency, is attempting with national service.
AmeriCorps has been one of the most effective public service initiatives of the post-Vietnam era. It allows young Americans to serve their country — many for the first time — through efforts ranging from disaster recovery and food-bank staffing to teaching and tutoring students and supporting our veterans and senior citizens. The program fosters civic pride, develops life-changing job skills and strengthens communities in every corner of this country.
I was honored to serve for nearly 30 years in the U.S. Air Force, and I recognize that not everyone is suited for the military. But many of those patriotic Americans still wish to contribute to our country. AmeriCorps is a way to do that.
These young men and women don't serve for accolades or headlines — they simply believe in making a difference. And their work, often behind the scenes, brings hope and practical support to thousands of Americans every day. AmeriCorps is national service at its best: voluntary, community-based, impactful and efficient.
If DOGE were genuinely focused on creating a more efficient federal government, it would model everything on AmeriCorps. Unlike most federal agencies, AmeriCorps is almost exclusively directed by state governors, who are always better positioned than Washington to decide where and how to spend and deploy resources. It is a public-private partnership that marries nominal federal investment with matching private contributions. Every federal tax dollar invested in its programs generates a $17 return to society at large through increased earning potential (both by AmeriCorps members and those they serve) and reduced reliance on state and federal government support.
I know of no other federal agency that generates that kind of taxpayer return on investment through positive, measurable outcomes. For these reasons, I am profoundly troubled by the recent wave of national service cuts directed by DOGE.
Not only are we stripping Americans of a chance to serve, but the communities these services support are left scrambling. Teach for America, Habitat for Humanity, City Year, Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers Big Sisters — each of their budgets, workforce and impact will be gutted by these cuts. At the same time, disaster response efforts and AmeriCorps Senior programs that connect senior volunteers with second-act opportunities, including foster grandparents and senior companion programs, are similarly being shut down. These cuts are being implemented without a clear strategy — just an arbitrary push to meet a numeric goal.
It's a sledgehammer approach when a scalpel is what's needed.
We can and should focus on eliminating waste, but we must also protect what works. AmeriCorps is not a bloated bureaucracy — it's a lean, high-return investment in service, leadership and community resilience. With every dollar spent, the return in lives changed and communities improved is undeniable.
At a time when division dominates our headlines, AmeriCorps brings people together around a common purpose. That's something worth preserving.
I urge my colleagues and the administration to pause and consider the long-term implications of these decisions. If we want to build a stronger nation, we must continue supporting service, not sidelining it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed minutes: Most officials worried about inflation moving higher
WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Federal Reserve officials said last month that the threat of higher inflation was a greater concern than the potential for job losses, leading the central bank to keep its key rate unchanged. According to the minutes of the July 29-30 meeting, released Wednesday, members of the Fed's interest-rate setting committee 'assessed that the effects of higher tariffs had become more apparent in the prices of some goods but that their overall effects on economic activity and inflation remained to be seen.' The minutes underscored the reluctance among the majority of the Fed's 19 policymakers to reduce the central bank's short-term interest rate until they get a clearer sense of the impact of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on inflation. So far inflation has crept up in the past couple of months but hasn't risen as much as many economists feared when Trump unveiled some of his duties. The Fed left its key interest rate unchanged last month at about 4.3%, though two members of its governing board dissented in favor of a rate cut. Both dissenters — Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman — were appointed to the board during Trump's first term. At a news conference after the meeting, Chair Jerome Powell signaled that it might take significant additional time for the Fed to determine whether Trump's sweeping tariffs are boosting inflation. When the Fed changes its rate, it often — though not always — affects borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards. The Fed typically keeps its rate high, or raises it, to cool borrowing and spending and combat inflation. It often cuts its rate to bolster the economy and hiring when growth is cooling. Christopher Rugaber, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
People Are Calling Trump's Latest Truth Social Rant "Outrageous" After He Slammed American Museums For Discussing "How Bad Slavery Was"
It's been 159 years since slavery was legally abolished in the U.S, and yet, in 2025, discussing the history of slavery has seemingly become too "woke" for the MAGA crowd. During a recent CNN panel discussion, MAGA-supporting celebrity Jillian Michaels shocked her colleagues after she argued that slavery shouldn't be blamed on "just one race," — meaning white Americans. CNN / Twitter: @Acyn Related: Well, President Donald Trump recently took to Truth Social to argue a similar point, criticizing American museums that discuss "how bad slavery was," calling them "woke" and "out of control." He wrote that he's instructed his attorneys to "go through the museums" and make changes to reflect "success" and "brightness." Here's the full post. Related: The now-viral post has been seen by over 10.2 million people and received thousands of comments criticizing Trump for his rhetoric. One person called Trump "out of his damn mind," and advocated for the history of slavery to be taught "again and again." Related: Another person described Trump's post as "pro slavery rhetoric." While this person called the president "fragile" for feeling attacked by teaching slavery. Representative Jim McGovern advised Trump to "spend more time in a museum." Related: And Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of trying to "erase" slavery... And finally, this person asked: "Why do the same people who want to erase the history of slavery insist on preserving the Confederate flag and generals?" What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Obama applauds Newsom's California redistricting plan as 'responsible' as Texas GOP pushes new maps
Former President Barack Obama has waded into states' efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom's response to alter his state's congressional maps, in the way of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans' position in next year's elections. 'I believe that Gov. Newsom's approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We're not going to try to completely maximize it,' Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. 'We're only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn't go into effect.' While noting that 'political gerrymandering' is not his 'preference,' Obama said that, if Democrats 'don't respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.' According to organizers, the event raised $2 million for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, one of which has filed and supported litigation in several states over GOP-drawn districts. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, who served as Obama's attorney general and heads up the group, also appeared. The former president's comments come as Texas lawmakers return to Austin this week, renewing a heated debate over a new congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats. The plan is the result of prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business. Spurred on by the Texas situation, Democratic governors including Newsom have pondered ways to possibly strengthen their party's position by way of redrawing U.S. House district lines, five years out from the Census count that typically leads into such procedures. In California — where voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan — Democrats have unveiled a proposal that could give that state's dominant political party an additional five U.S. House seats in a bid to win the fight to control of Congress next year. If approved by voters in November, the blueprint could nearly erase Republican House members in the nation's most populous state, with Democrats intending to win the party 48 of its 52 U.S. House seats, up from 43. A hearing over that measure devolved into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats, and a committee voted along party lines to advance the new congressional map. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead, and legislators are expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get required voter approval. Newsom and Democratic leaders say they'll ask voters to approve their new maps only for the next few elections, returning map-drawing power to the commission following the 2030 census — and only if a Republican state moves forward with new maps. Obama applauded that temporary timeline. 'And we're going to do it in a temporary basis because we're keeping our eye on where we want to be long term,' Obama said, referencing Newsom's take on the California plan. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.' ___ Kinnard can be reached at
