from experts in the field:
Charles Rangel (
www.house.gov/rangel) is a U.S. congressman
who represents New York’s 15th District.
DECEMBER DEBATE RESULTS:
Do Americans pamper
their pets too much?
DESPITE THE SIGNING bonuses and college aid that we are throwing in to support our current economic draft, troops are being redeployed three, four and sometimes five times. That is unfair to these
soldiers and their families. All who enjoy the benefits of living in this
free society should share the burden of making this country safer, at
home and abroad.
That is why I have frequently called for a mandatory national service requirement.
It would require all legal residents between the ages of 18 and 42 to serve this country
in some form.
While the first priority would be to replenish our military ranks, those not assigned
to the battlefield would serve domestically for two years in our sea- and airports, schools,
hospitals and other facilities. To ensure that the burden is shared, no deferments would be
allowed beyond the completion of high school, up to age 20, except for conscientious
objectors or those with health problems.
The benefits go beyond meeting our military needs. Locally, these national service
participants would help reinforce and expand the work of police officers, firefighters,
teachers, nurses and doctors. It would help free up the National Guard and Reserves so
they can be available to assist when disasters strike domestically and internationally.
That kind of goodwill not only educates and saves lives, it also creates the kind of strong
relationships that we need to fight the extremism that fuels terrorist threats worldwide.
Just as important, national service would give young and old alike a shared experience
and a continuous stake in some of the nation’s most pressing issues, from the decision to
go to war to education and social programs.
So many young people are already trying to do their part by joining the military,
volunteering in local organizations and joining programs like AmeriCorps and the Peace
Corps. Imagine what could be done if there were more, supported by both the public and
private sectors. Imagine the kind of world we could have if we each played an active role in
the well-being of our nation and our neighbors. C
YES
49% NO
51%
Percentage reflects votes
received by December 10, 2007.
NOVEMBER DEBATE UPDATE:
Should government legislate
“appropriate” dress codes?
YES: 39% NO: 61%
Percentage reflects votes
received by November 30, 2007.
from experts in the field:
Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive
Policy Institute (
www.ppionline.org), a center for policy
innovation in Washington, D.C.
MAKING NATIONAL SERVICE compulsory is the wrong way to go.
Consider first the problem of scale. About 4 million men and women
graduate from high school each year. Assigning them to tasks in either the
military or civilian service would quickly overwhelm our existing service
infrastructure. It would inevitably lead to the creation of make-work jobs
that risk discrediting the national service in the public’s eyes. To get around this obvious problem, some draft proponents have called for a lottery. But it’s doubtful that a system that drafts,
say, one of every four or five members of each year’s graduating class will be seen as fair by
those whose numbers are picked at random.
Even if there’s a case today for a purely military draft to relieve overstretched U.S. forces,
there’s absolutely no precedent in American history for drafting citizens into civilian service.
That’s as it should be. Too much government coercion risks crushing the spirit of volunteerism
that traditionally has distinguished American democracy.
Thinking in terms of incentives rather than compulsion, it is possible to envision a
voluntary path to universal service. In our book The AmeriCorps Experiment and the Future of
National Service, Marc Magee and I propose linking federal student aid to national service. The
federal government spends lots of money on college aid—more than $26 billion on grants and
loan subsidies. We propose that eligibility for public help be conditioned on students’ willingness to serve their communities. Making college aid an “earned entitlement” would give lots of
college-going youths a powerful inducement to sign up for national service. And we would raise
the current education reward for service from $4,750 to $10,000 per each year of service—
which would cover the average cost of two years’ tuition at a public university.
Rather than a “draft,” the model should be more like the GI Bill, which educated millions
of World War II veterans. The bill we propose would tackle unmet social needs. It would allow
national service to grow gradually to truly national scale, so that it one day becomes a common
rite of civic passage for young Americans. C
Opinions expressed are those of the individuals
or organizations represented and are presented
to foster discussion. Costco and The Costco
Connection take no position on any Debate topic.
