GovernmentExecutive.com

Chris: What about ROTC? That program has been in existance at many colleges for several decades, and has produced thousands of officers for the military. No need to "reinvent the wheel"! Also, mandatory federal service isn't that hard to envision with today's computer systems & technology. The big problem, as I alluded to is the 'me, me, me' attitudes of the younger generation, that and the Divided States of America. As long as federal service, whether military or civilian is regarding as blue-collar, this great idea will not fly, IMO.

Christmas Tree  | Tuesday, September 04, 2007 |  10:32 AM

---

Christmas Tree,

Given your interest in getting young people to give back to our country and your concern for the public's attitude toward public service, I am surprised to read that you oppose the effort to build the Public Service Academy. While I share your interest in mandatory national service, I recognize that implementing a universal, mandatory program would not only meet tremendous opposition but also would be outrageously expensive. More effective at transforming the way people perceive public service and public servants would be to create a prestigious national academy that recruits the nation's best and brightest and prepares them for careers in the public sector. That's what the Public Service Academy would do. I think it's worthy of your support.

Chris Myers Asch  | Tuesday, September 04, 2007 |  08:33 AM

---

Ever since the Reagan administration, the office of the President and ALL of congress have made it their mantra to disparage government service. They have campaigned on it, have spoken (at length) on the need to "shrink the government", have ignored the pay comparability act, and have (in some cases) taken every opportunity to disparage federal workers. The universal message has been "we don't value your service- GET OUT."

Well, guess what? It worked. Federal employees are leaving and no one is taking their place. Where I think the article misses the mark is that it fails to ask this question: Why should anyone agree to take on a job where you are reviled by both the elected officials AND the public?

Concerned citizen  | Tuesday, September 04, 2007 |  07:45 AM

---

We don't need any civil service "academy", we already have thousands of colleges and universities receiving government aid. What we need first is MANDATORY national service for both men and women of a minimum of two years. When possible, this service could conceiveably be in the field of their interest, and college credits might be given, as well as some sort of GI Bill. Today, our nation is producing a crop of technotoy-infatuated selfish brats, who are encouraged to do nothing for others. The second, or complementary issue is that of attitude. As a retired fed, I always hated the term "civil servant" as being a demeaning European way of looking at my career. Until we can perhaps change the public's misunderstanding of federal/state workers we will still have problems.

Christmas Tree  | Tuesday, September 04, 2007 |  02:46 AM

---

How much will this cost?

David Johnson  | Sunday, September 02, 2007 |  12:46 PM

---

Your articles lack depth. The problem is not one of volunteerism, rather it is the failure of this national community to recognize the sacrifice of personal service and to daily display successful public service being continuously promoted by many in public service. We cannot do anything without shifting our focus on the successess, not the failures of public service. You do not increase personal sacrifice by placing the media focus on the negative. It is time to praise the value we all receive from public service.

R. Clemons Turner  | Friday, August 31, 2007 |  11:07 PM

---

The fact is, our nation faces seemingly intractable problems that need more resources, including well structured volunteer programs. The federal government could help mobilize young people, assist them in finding places to serve, and provide additional resources to well run programs. Neither traditional volunteer programs nor for- and nonprofit organizations (including those that are faith-based) have not solved all (any?) of the critical problems facing our citizens and communities. Finding better ways to tap the energy, motivation, and creativity of youth is worth trying. Engaging people, regardless of age, in their communities is well worth supporting, and will pay dividends long after a stint in a national service program. What I seeing proposed will not supplant existing programs, but rather will augment them and give them a better chance to succeed.

What better way to encourage civic engagement that to insist that people actually ENGAGE in civically important work. As a result, we'll have better informed electorate. As a result of that, well have a stronger, more vibrant, more inclusive nation.

B Cline  | Friday, August 31, 2007 |  02:23 PM

---

This sounds like business as usual. The Government is very ineffective so the answer is to provide more ineffective government.

What ever happened to getting government out of peoples lives as much as possible and letting people take care of things. It sounds like this is working better as government gets less effective.

David Schow  | Friday, August 31, 2007 |  12:02 PM

---

the very reason volunteerism and charity is higher in the US than any other country is because it comes from the heart. The quickest way to end this giving is to add structure and government intervention. This outreach has been going on for decades and as usual Time has slanted the polls as if show its the governments fault.
AmeriCorps is "NOT" a volunteer program its a paid position costing taxpayers $25,000 per participant. We already haver public service academies is called college.
The liberal left can't wait to get their hands on this to eliminate faith based initatives.
Leave peoples' good acts alone.

dan ketter  | Friday, August 31, 2007 |  11:44 AM

---