Our View: Fix service program instead of letting it wither away

On Monday, John Franklin's five-person AmeriCorps crew replaced handrails and painted trim for Manna Inc., a food pantry in Bangor, Maine. On Tuesday, they worked on a handicap ramp for an AIDS center in Ellsworth. Today, they plan to take care of lawns at a low-income housing site in Bangor.
But Aug. 1 looms as the last day for Franklin and his crew, who perform community service in exchange for college tuition paid by the federal government. That's when the number of jobs AmeriCorps sponsors in Maine shrinks from 163 to 10 — part of a nationwide reduction in the program from a current 67,000 positions to 30,000.

Some of the blame for the steep cutbacks in the service program falls on poor management of AmeriCorps, which created more openings than it had money to fund. Yet President Bush and Congress also share responsibility for backing away from pledges after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to make national service a top priority through moves such as expanding AmeriCorps.

By failing to make AmeriCorps more effective or provide other outlets for volunteerism, Bush and lawmakers are missing an opportunity to seize on Americans' heightened interest in national service. The program's dramatic downsizing during tough economic times also threatens to deprive communities of needed help, and young people of the financial aid they need to attend college.

Congress' refusal to expand the modest program comes in sharp contrast to strong support the Peace Corps enjoyed after President John F. Kennedy delivered his stirring "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech in 1961. The idea of national service later lost its luster, as young men across the country bitterly protested the military draft during the escalation of the Vietnam War.

In 1993, with the draft long dead, Congress created AmeriCorps, which offers participants $4,725 in education grants. Initially envisioned as a 1-million-member corps, the $275-million-a-year program never grew beyond 75,000 positions.

For a brief period after 9/11, Bush and Republican leaders in Congress proposed expanding AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs to meet a revival of interest in national service. According to a Sept. 28-30, 2001 survey by American Demographics magazine, when Americans were asked what was more important to them as a result of the attacks, 67% chose "serving the country." Other surveys showed that Americans were willing to make sacrifices, from helping to pay for the war against terrorism to cutting the nation's dependence on imported oil.

AmeriCorps, however, did not receive the promised funds. While Bush says he still supports expanding AmeriCorps, he has yet to endorse a $200 million infusion needed to fund 50,000 positions after Aug. 1. The cost could be paid by diverting a tiny fraction of the $350 billion tax cut he signed this spring.

Critics of AmeriCorps correctly note that the program wastes money because of poor management. The solution to that problem is to make AmeriCorps work better or replace it — not simply let it wither away.

In his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush called on Americans to serve goals "larger than self." That's what John Franklin's construction crew wants to keep doing in Maine — if given the chance.

Opposing View: Have faith in the people
By Dick Armey
When AmeriCorps was created in 1993, it was, at its core, a program rooted in the un-American idea that the people of this country have to be enticed into community service with monetary incentive. AmeriCorps displaces private charity with government-managed, well-paid social activism based on the elitist assumption that community service is not already taking place.
It is a stunningly arrogant reminder of just how little faith government has in the American people. Like hundreds of other ill-conceived government programs, AmeriCorps doesn't recognize the goodness of the American people and doesn't meet the needs of the nation. It ignores the fact that Americans meet those needs every day without government help. They quietly give hours of their time and billions of dollars each year with no expectation of recognition or reward. Americans don't need the government to teach us about charity. Like most things, we do our best work when government stays out of the way.

Which is why it is so frustrating that there are those who are trying to expand the program and throw more money at it, especially when resources are scarce and lawmakers need to make tough spending decisions.

Instead of spending more on an unnecessary program to pay "volunteers," we should use those resources for more pressing priorities — homeland security, for instance.

I realize that AmeriCorps strives to make homeland security a big part of its mission, but if we are going to pay someone to plan for and respond to a national emergency, why not hire a few more law enforcement and health care professionals? Better yet, why not just do away with AmeriCorps, which costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and return that money to struggling taxpayers who will put it to better use?

But that would require government to put its faith in the American people, and I don't put much faith in that happening.

AmeriCorps assumes the worst about the motivations of Americans to help their neighbors. It operates on the theory that we need a government mandate and a government carrot before we will step forward and serve our communities.

I don't need my government to treat me that way.

Former House majority leader Dick Armey is co-chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a non-profit group that advocates lower taxes and less government.