The Next Great American Institution

In the upcoming days, Representative Jim Moran of Virginia will introduce a bill that could create for President Obama what the Peace Corps was for John F. Kennedy and AmeriCorps was for Bill Clinton. Like these two high-profile--and increasingly popular--programs, the Public Service Academy seeks not only to create more opportunities for Americans to serve, but to change an entire culture's approach towards service.

Like the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, the Public Service Academy will send a message that service is a national priority. But unlike these programs, the Academy will focus on an area of public service that these major initiatives have not emphasized: full-time, career-oriented public sector service.

The Academy will create a civilian counterpart to our military academies. But instead of leaders for the armed forces, the Academy will teach America's best and brightest how to be effective and efficient leaders in local, state, and national government. Students would earn a four-year scholarship to study a unique curriculum focused on civics, international education, and leadership development. In addition to a liberal arts major, they also will focus on a public service field that has been recognized as an area of critical need--currently identified as education, emergency management, energy & environment, foreign policy, health care, and law enforcement.

The Academy would serve approximately 5000 students a year, and, upon graduation, students will serve in their public service area for five years. They might be teaching in a rural school district in Louisiana, or working for a national agency, like the FDA or FEMA. Just as the service requirement for the military academies are often only the first steps of a life-long career in the Navy, Air Force, or Army, the hope is that the Public Service Academy will prepare an entire generation of leaders for our government.

As 90% of federal leadership becomes eligible for retirement in the next ten years, and shortages in hospitals, classrooms, and police departments are projected for cities and towns across the country, the United States will need these leaders to make our government work again. With government agencies already attempting to expand their staffs already attempting to expand their staffs as well as deal with recent mishaps and failings, there isn't any time to waste.

Administration leaders certainly recognize the idea's potential: Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden both co-sponsored the Academy bill last year, and Hillary Clinton championed the proposal in the Senate. President Obama has called for the rejuvenation of volunteerism and community service; appropriately, there's no better time to focus on building a strong government that can support and carry out these ideas. The president has also called for transparency and efficiency in government; what more fitting legacy can he leave than to ensure a generation of leaders that will make government better?

With strong support in the White House, it will be up to Congress to get the bill to President Obama's desk when it drops next week in the House and shortly afterward in the Senate. Although supporters of the Academy come from both sides of the aisle--last year, the bill racked up 123 sponsors in the House from both sides of the aisle, and 24 likewise diverse supporters in the Senate--it has also faced critics that are generally afraid of perceived high costs and bigger government.

The Public Service Academy would require a $205 million appropriation per year. That's about 70 cents a year from each American to run a flagship institution that would produce continual returns for our country. And not only would students of the Academy replace retiring baby boomers or fill already existing shortages, but well-trained leaders will make government more efficient--better, not bigger.

But the general argument behind critics' fears is true: the U.S. Public Service Academy certainly requires significant economic and governmental investment--and supporters of the bill should not shy away, but rather, champion this fact.

That's part of the point. Proposed and existing scholarship programs, tax breaks or financial aid incentives that attempt to encourage public service do not have the power to capture the imagination of a generation. They fail to send as clear and salient a message: public service is a priority not for the select few who are interested in--and likely to seek out--these programs, but for every American.

Have you heard the Truman Scholarship? It is perhaps the most prestigious public service scholarship, yet many Americans have never heard of it. How about the Pickering, the Hollings, or the Udall Scholarships? Or the Federal Cyber Service Scholarship? These are all federal scholarships that have been created to encourage public service; they are also, despite being excellent opportunities, not on the radar of most American youth.

Imagine a high school student who is interested in public service but unsure about how exactly it fits into his future: it's likely that he or she won't have heard of these programs. But this same student will have likely heard about West Point--because it has become, like the Peace Corps, a hallmark American establishment. For this same reason, the Public Service Academy, when it is built, will not only provide unprecedented access to public service for young people, but bring respect and prestige back to public service in our country.

If President Obama acts now, the U.S. Public Service Academy will be associated with him and his administration, much like the way the Peace Corps still evokes John F. Kennedy. As we approach Presidents' Day, we citizens should let Congress know that we support what would be the next landmark American institution and an enduring legacy for generations to come.

Comments

[dblgoldens]

Wow, paranoia much?!

The US Public Service Academy will fill a void for those who want to make government actually function because they are trained to do so. Kinda like how the military academies provide a place for those interested in military leadership training to become the best at their jobs. Ever notice that the men and women who are in charge of our military often come from those academies? Yeah, because they happen to be the best and brightest. Now we need to attract the civil servants back to the ranks.

Instead of spewing paranoia about Hitler Youth and Lobbyist Training and how government is the problem, why don't you participate in the solutions and support this cause? Or at least direct your energy to something that needs disdain and oversight, like corporate America.

I am so over the tired arguments presented. Be a citizen first.

[Web1]

So the taxpayers need to pay $205 Million a year for 5,000 students. This equals $41,000 per student per year. Assume it takes a student four years to complete the program - the taxpayer has now invested $164,000 per student. A little less than an ivy league education.

Wasn't sure from the article how much the taxpayer's bill will be for the five years of "service" from individuals. The AmeriCorp site says that "volunteers" are given a "modest living allowance, healthcare benefits, childcare assistance." Will it be on par to that or full salary upon graduation without the burden of re-payment of student loans?

My biggest concern is that we are setting up the perfect program for future LOBBYISTS!!! Get a free education, learn the ins and outs of the government for 5 years, then get a job lobbying the government.

Why does the government need to do this training? Why can't private sector colleges and universities prepare our future leaders? Harvard trained Obama. Couldn't the 205 Million go to starting programs in multiple colleges across the country? This would open the opportunity up to more than 5,000 elite.

Also, why so much concern about filling jobs in the government. At the rate we are going - 10% or more unemployment - don't you think there will be plenty of people willing to do the work. If we continue down this road of destroying GDP because of our crushing national debt, the government will be the only employer left.

[googoogajob]

I am not so concerned about the creation of future lobbyists as I am about the creation of future 'youth brigades'.

First, the term 'Corps' is a military designation, and what is being created here is a paramilitary group. This is simply a fact, no matter how warm and fuzzy the political rhetoric is.

Second, the original language for the GIVE bill contained the term 'mandatory' though I believe under pressure it was removed. That does not mean it will not become mandatory, it means at this time 'mandatory' is not quite politically palatable. The desire IS for mandatory service. Also, language in the passed bill removes participants first amendment rights to free speech and political protest. Quite a coup, locking the lips of so many of our young and unemployed.

Third, and this is the meat of my anxiety, is the long history of such youth brigades. They are inherently socialisti­c/fascisti­c. They are collectivist. Now, if we recall Maoist, Nazi, or Stalinist Youth Brigades, the dangers of this idea become very apparent (at least to me).

So the big question is: do we trust that this is a program that will not be mis-used, that will not become a political indoctrination program, that will not create a paramilitary troop of little Jugend (Hitler Youth) who will act like Stasi (East-German community spies)?

History records that the Hitler Youth was in fact an all volunteer organization until it became mandatory. Are we paying attention here?

[Web1]

I agree with you on the dangers of were this could lead. I watched on CSPAN the press conference Obama had at the Lincoln Hall dedication at the National Defense University in March. He stated that we needed civilians to be training along side our military. I shuddered.

But if you jump to the comparison of Hitler youth immediately, you lose credibility and the attention of most people. I think if you want to reach people you have to ask them to think on their own - free of campaign promises and rhetoric. Most people believe in Obama and any comparison of his motives to Hitler stops all independent thought about the ramifications of such a program.

I guess my point was that we can't afford this at this time, hoping this was a baby step and something most people would consider.

I also hope that people will consider this question. "What if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs were required to do mandatory service? Where would we be today? Would it have delayed technological development or stopped it all together?"

We all contribute to society in our own way. We need to make sure that Government training or volunteerism does not inadvertently destroy progress in other areas. Government does not create, only FREE citizens create.

American citizens need to protect and defend the ideal that the government SERVES US and that we should never be required to serve government.