Washington Watch: The Politics of Service
By Mark F. Smith
One of the many paradoxes of politics in Washington these days is that partisan divisions and bitterness increase dramatically when both parties seem to support the same issue. Take education, for example. At the end of sessions over the past few years, the parties have competed to see which one could spend the most on education programs. Those competitions, however, took place after weeks, and sometimes months, of partisan deadlock over how to allocate education dollars.
Volunteerism is another area that gives rise to bitter conflict. Part of the problem is that president Clinton has forged an intense personal identification with national and community service. As a result, some congressional Republicans have a deep personal hostility toward Clinton’s pet program. Yet the program demands only a small federal expenditure, and both parties have a history of promoting volunteerism.
As part of his kinder and gentler vision for America, for example, George Bush established a "thousand points of light" program during his presidency to highlight volunteer activity. Today, former President Bush serves as honorary board chair for the Points of Light Foundation.
In the 1992 campaign, candidate Bill Clinton promised to restructure the student loan system and to create a National Service Loan Trust Fund, coupling increased access to higher education with the promotion of national and community service. As president, Clinton was able to bring a version of his vision into reality.
In 1993 he signed the National and Community Service Trust Act, using the pens that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy had used to sign legislation establishing the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Peace Corps. The bill established the Corporation for National and Community Service to provide opportunities for service in the areas of education, public safety, human needs, and the environment. The corporation oversees three national service initiatives: AmeriCorps, the National Senior Service Corps, and Learn and Serve America. Program volunteers work in projects in the community, including those run by faith-based organizations.
In 1997 the Corporation for National and Community Service and the Points of Light Foundation cosponsored the Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future, bringing the current president and former presidents together around the need to engage all Americans in volunteering to help provide fundamental resources for our nation’s children and youth.
These activities should indicate strong bipartisan support for volunteerism and a relatively uncontroversial path in the congressional appropriations process for programs supporting it. But that has emphatically not been the case. The Corporation for National and Community Service continues to be a major target for elimination. Most of the programs threatened with dissolution in 1994 when the Republicans gained a majority in Congress eventually found their supporters, yet the corporation faces an annual battle just to survive.
Despite congressional hostility, the president continues to use corporation programs to promote his goals. He recently announced, for example, that AmeriCorps volunteers will work to eliminate the "digital divide." AmeriCorps is the initiative most in line with candidate Clinton’s 1992 vision. Volunteers receive monetary awards that help them finance college or pay back student loans in exchange for work on community-based service projects.
With a new president taking office in January 2001, some of the personal nature of the debate may be removed. Al Gore is a strong supporter of the corporation. And George W. Bush has promoted "compassionate conservatism" and faith-based charity efforts.
In the meantime, quick resolution of fiscal 2001 funding for the corporation seems unlikely. Although appropriations bills seem to be moving more quickly this year than last, the Veterans Administration–Housing and Urban Development bill, which funds the Corporation for National and Community Service, traditionally causes some controversy. Thus another last-minute decision on the future of the agency is probable.
There is certainly room for a reasoned debate over the level of support (if any) the federal government should provide for voluntary service activity. But based on the current political outlook, don’t look for such a debate this year, in Congress or on the campaign trail.
Mark Smith is associate director of AAUP government relations.
|