WASHINGTON - For once, the Bush administration and leading senators from both parties are engaged in the right kind of bidding war.
With patriotism surging in the aftermath of Sept. 11, this Washington one-upmanship isn't about who doles out the most to special interests like Enron but who can do the most to encourage volunteers who will serve their communities and their country.
In his State of the Union Address, Bush called for more opportunities for national service, including an expansion of AmeriCorps, an effort that encourages young people to work in worthwhile projects.
Bush didn't mention that AmeriCorps was his predecessor's pet project - an outgrowth of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign promise to offer every qualified young person the opportunity to attend college or trade school, in return for two years of national service.
This vision shrunk in 1993, as a result of the Clinton administration's emphasis on reducing the federal budget deficit and congressional Republicans' intense opposition to the initiative.
Nonetheless, AmeriCorps grew into an effort that offers 50,000 volunteers the opportunity to serve full-time in charities and other community projects, in return for a small stipend for living costs, and, once they've completed their stints, an additional $4,725-a-year toward college tuition.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Since the program began, more than 100,000 young people have participated, and the results of their work have been impressive.
In one of AmeriCorps' signature programs, volunteers have taught, tutored or mentored about 500,000 children in low-income communities. In other efforts, they have built low-income housing, helped flood-ravaged communities, and assisted more than 200,000 older Americans who are living on their own.
These successes explain why President Bush wants to increase AmeriCorps' budget by 50 percent, so that it can add an additional 25,000 volunteers. But some to the right of the White House have broken ranks.
Retiring House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas, said: "I think the conceptual framework of AmeriCorps is obnoxious." And the Wall Street Journal's editorial page warned that expanding AmeriCorps would "federalize volunteerism."
But contrary to its critics' contentions that AmeriCorps burdens those communities with heavy-handed bureaucracies, touchy-feely youth-cultists, or both, the program is an effective investment in the tradition of other national efforts that encouraged and rewarded public-spirited behavior.
AmeriCorps members devote much of their time and energy to recruiting, training and supervising community volunteers. As Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has noted, studies show that each AmeriCorps member generates, on the average, nine additional volunteers. Thus, AmeriCorps strengthens, not supplants, existing community efforts and organizations.
As for philosophical objections to rewarding people for doing what they should be doing anyway, this is in the tradition of some of the most successful American initiatives.
From the Homestead Act that encouraged venturesome families to settle the West to the GI Bill that rewarded the generation that won World War II, some of the most effective and accepted public policies have offered incentives for people to serve the national interest and improve their own condition as well.
That's why McCain and Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., are upping the ante on President Bush by proposing the Call to Service Act, which would increase AmeriCorps by 500 percent, not just 50 percent, and offer new incentives for military service as well. Usually shrewder than his adversaries expect, Bush may meet them part of the way.
A Washington bidding-war for a worthy cause?
That would be a rare but welcome sign that the current crisis is changing politics and policy-making for the better.
by David Kusnet
Knight Ridder-Tribune Columnist
David Kusnet was chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton from 1992 through 1994. He is the author of "Speaking American: How the Democrats Can Win in the Nineties" and a visiting fellow at the Economic Policy Institute. Readers may write to him at EPI, 1660 L Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20036, or visit the EPI Web site at www.epinet.org.
