
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, January 20, 1995                   TAG: 9501200057
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

IN DEFENSE OF NATIONAL SERVICE

AMERICORPS, the fledgling national-service program that gives young people help with college expenses or other post-high-school training in exchange for community-service work, is one of the Clinton administration's best initiatives. It's also one that some Republican lawmakers want to eliminate. Their opposition is inconsistent with values they say they hold dear:

Volunteerism. Help for the middle class. Vouchers as a substitute for government-controlled programs. Ending expectations of no-strings-attached entitlements and handouts, and refocusing on citizens' responsibility, personal and civic.

A signature proposal of Clinton's ``New Democrat'' campaign in 1992, Americorps is an embodiment of these values. Though considerably scaled down from original plans, it could one day prove as important to the higher education of future generations as the GI Bill was to their elders. Indeed, though billed as a domestic Peace Corps or an updated VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America), its prototype was the World War II-era legislation that rewarded millions of veterans with a college education for their national military service. America still reaps benefits from that unprecedented commitment to higher education.

Such a commitment is needed again. Never before has the nation's future depended so much on how well young people are educated and trained. Yet, at a time when a college degree is a requirement for even many entry-level jobs, sky-high tuitions are making it hard to attain for many - in middle-class families. Other student-aid programs, including federal loans and grants, have helped, but they haven't kept pace with fast-rising college costs.

The four-month-old Americorps does not, of course, meet all financial needs. It certainly will not guarantee a free college education for everyone. (Neither did the GI Bill.) But the aid it provides could bring college or vocational training within reach for tens of thousands of high-school graduates who otherwise might end up in dead-end jobs or worse.

Just as important, national service bolsters a powerful but fragile concept, a conservative concept: that young people have a moral responsibility to give for what they get; that opportunities offered by this country and its communities are not rights and entitlements, but imply a debt incurred. In this case, participants can pay back college funds in advance, with voluntary service to the poor, the elderly and their communities. It is the fulfillment of a civic compact to help others while helping themselves.

Critics label the national-service program - now serving about 20,000 mostly middle-class young people at a cost of about $500 million - a federal boondoggle. But Americorps creates no large, expensive bureaucracy or unfunded mandates; states and localities can take or leave participants' services. House Speaker Newt Gingrich bashes the program as ``coercive volunteerism'' because participants are paid. But no one suggests that the volunteer army or Peace Corps shouldn't pay.

Bill Clinton does not often enough take a stand and keep to it. He should in defense of Americorps.

by CNB