National service -- an idea whose time has come, again -- Dec. 3, 2015 column

By MARSHA MERCER

After 9/11, a patriotic impulse swept the United States. Flags waved on every corner and everybody wanted to do something to fight terrorism. But not everyone wanted to, or could, volunteer for the military.

President George W. Bush urged people to go to Disneyland. And so the moment was wasted.

Today, less than 1 percent of Americans serves in the military. Over the last 14 years, we have grown increasingly disconnected from one other and more distrustful of government. Many lament our lack of civility and poisonous politics but feel powerless to change anything. 

Fewer and fewer experiences unite us as Americans. Even the occasions that many people share – like donating to a good cause on Giving Tuesday – we do alone.

But there’s hope. While some problems, like the horrifying gun violence we saw in California on Wednesday, seem intractable, bipartisan support is coalescing around a way that could bring us together: voluntary national service.

The Aspen Institute Franklin Project is promoting the idea that every American 18 to 28 should have the opportunity to spend a year in full time, fully paid public service in an area such as health, poverty, conservation or education.

The project envisions that a million young people would participate by 2023. The year of service would become a cultural expectation and rite of passage, much as serving in the military once was. National service would not be mandated but highly encouraged, perhaps with tuition forgiveness, a new G.I. bill and other perks.

“There’s something about service that’s essential to citizenship,” retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and chairman of the Franklin Project, said at a panel discussion Monday at the Aspen Institute in Washington. “It’s what defines a nation.”

World War II put 16 million Americans in uniform, but everybody was asked to do something. National service would create alumni similarly invested in the country’s future, McChrystal said. 

The Franklin Project’s blue-ribbon Leadership Council includes former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, NAACP former president Benjamin Jealous, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former NBC News anchor and author Tom Brokaw. Also, Virginia first lady Dorothy McAuliffe and College of William and Mary President W. Taylor Reveley III.

They’re hoping to jumpstart national service. Since John F. Kennedy created the Peace Corps in 1961, presidents have tried to expand national service. In 2008, both presidential candidates -- Barack Obama and John McCain – promised to make national service a priority.

President Obama signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act in 2009, proclaiming a “new era of service.” The law was supposed to expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 250,000 individuals. AmeriCorps members are neither volunteers nor employees. They receive stipends to cover living expenses, health insurance, child care and, upon completion of their term of service, education grants.

Some conservatives oppose “paid volunteerism,” and Congress never provided funding for the expansion. The Franklin Project is looking to enlist the private sector to pay for public service opportunities.

President Obama last year started Employers of National Service which links AmeriCorps and Peace Corps alumni with employers. More than 150 companies, nonprofits, public agencies and cities, including Philadelphia and Nashville, have signed on to give alumni a boost in recruitment, hiring and promotions.

Virginia became the first state Employer of National Service in January.  State agencies are directed to recruit AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps alumni and to consider public service as part of the hiring process.

On the 2016 presidential campaign trail, Hillary Clinton promises to expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 individuals by 2017 and would allow those who commit to service to graduate from in-state colleges debt-free. Other candidates in both parties support expanding national service to varying degrees.   

Many more young people want to serve than can currently be accommodated. About half a million people apply for the 75,000 AmeriCorps slots. This year, more than 44,100 people, most of them recent college graduates, applied for 4,000 Teach for America jobs.  

Some high schools and colleges require public service for graduation. Arizona State University opened a Public Service Academy this fall that is believed to be the first undergraduate program in the country similar to ROTC for students who want to work in the volunteer sector.

Young Americans are yearning to serve their country. Let’s give them the chance – and build stronger communities and a more robust citizenry in the process. We can’t afford to waste another moment.

©2015 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

Portraits on taxpayers' dime -- Why? -- Sept. 11, 2014 column

By MARSHA MERCER

A perk of being a Washington bigwig is to be immortalized the old-fashioned way -- in an oil painting paid for by taxpayers.     

The official portrait of former CIA Director Leon E. Panetta was unveiled Sept. 5 at the CIA, where a Directors Gallery honors every chief since the first in 1946.

What made Panetta’s painting different from his predecessors’ and most, if not all, the hundreds of official portraits on walls around Washington was his decision to be painted with his dog, Bravo.

Panetta, who served as CIA director from February 2009 to June 2011, has said his golden retriever was in the room during some of his toughest moments, such as planning the operation to kill Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

In the portrait, a smiling Panetta has both hands on his pet, making him look more like a genial professor than the spook who took out Public Enemy No. 1. The picture elicits appreciative “awws” from pet lovers, but it also raises a question:

Is an official portrait – even of a distinguished public servant like Panetta -- a good use of your tax dollars?

Taxpayers spent $300,000 last year alone on oil portraits of senior officials, reports “Wastebook 2013,” the annual compendium of wasteful federal spending published by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

The price tag of the CIA’s portrait of Panetta wasn’t disclosed. But if one picture is worth the cost, whatever it is, how about two? Of the same person?  

Panetta served eight terms in Congress and was President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. After his stint at the CIA, he was secretary of defense from July 2011 to February 2013. So, naturally, the Defense Department commissioned a Panetta portrait last year for its Pentagon Collection.

I say naturally because over the last decade the Defense Department has ordered 25 of at least 69 official portraits purchased by government agencies, according to “Wastebook.”

The Defense Department contracted to spend $31,200 on its Panetta painting, which hasn’t been unveiled yet. The sum is infinitesimal in the Defense budget, but it’s real money to many Americans who have no say how their taxes are spent.

Don’t get me wrong. I love portraits, especially those that give us a glimpse of the subject’s personality. Generations of school children might have no idea what George Washington looked like were it not for artist Gilbert Stuart. There’s still a place for portraiture in the 21^st century.

But as often is the case, the government is being free with other people’s (our) money. An official portrait shouldn’t be the default honor for a departing agency head.

In October 2012, then-Defense Secretary Panetta presided over the ceremonial unveiling of the official portrait of former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Speaking that day, Gates mentioned that the same artist had painted the official portrait of “a certain CIA director” two decades earlier.

“It didn’t seem all that different, a few pounds lighter, maybe a couple of inches taller. The hair a more useful shade of white,” Gates said, drawing laughter. He was CIA director from 1991 to 1993.

“A sure sign you’ve been in Washington too long,” Gates said, is when the portraitist has “more than one crack at your portrait a generation apart.”

You can argue Gates and Panetta deserve the honor. But people whose careers are not nearly as distinguished sit for artists on the taxpayer’s dime.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered a $20,000 portrait of former Sec. Steve Preston, who was in the job all of seven months. “Wastebook” also reports taxpayers forked over $20,000 for former Energy Secretary Steven Chu, $23,000 for former NASA deputy administrator Lori B. Gardner and $30,000 each for the first and second Homeland Security secretaries, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff.

Enough already.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t pick up the tab for a portrait that costs more than many hardworking taxpayers make in a year,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who is leading a bipartisan effort to rein in spending on portraits.

The proposed Responsible Use of Taxpayer Dollars for Portraits Act would prohibit federal funds for portraits of members of Congress and most agency heads and set a cap of $20,000 per painting of those in the line of succession to the presidency.  

Congress should stop spending taxpayers’ money on official portraits – even for bigwigs who have good dogs.

©2014 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30