The Political Interest Life After High School

By Michael Kramer

"IF I EVER WIN THIS DEAL," BILL CLINTON SAID 14 MONTHS ago, "and if I'm remembered for only one thing, I hope it's national service. It's the best money we could ever spend, and I mean to spend it."

As good as his word, Clinton is pushing a four-year, $7.4 billion appropriation for national service, the plan that would permit students to finance their post-secondary education by working for up to two years in a variety of community jobs. Even with a price tag that steep, however, the program can fund at most 150,000 Americans a year by 1997, a fraction of the potential demand and a far cry from Clinton's campaign pledge that "every young American could borrow the money necessary to go to college" by "giving two years of his life to rebuild America."

A spirited debate has arisen as the plan's advocates maneuver to craft its details. The key question involves the program's target audience. The Administration is currently considering giving up to $10,000 a year to those who serve after graduating from college, twice the sum contemplated for those who complete their work stint after high school. Neither figure would come close to purchasing a private education, but the White House says four years at many state universities could be covered by $20,000. The three legislators most associated with national service over the years -- Representative Dave McCurdy and Senators Sam Nunn and Barbara Mikulski -- are dead set against favoring college grads. "Skew it to those who've completed college," says Nunn, "and you've wiped out a major rationale for the plan, which is to get / kids of varied backgrounds to work together in a common civic experience. You also want to aid as many members of the college-age population as you can who want decent vocational training. Leave them behind and you pay later in welfare and other costs. And besides," Nunn notes, "most of the jobs that need filling, like helping the elderly in their homes -- which could save billions in health-care costs -- don't require a college degree." What's more, says American University president Joe Duffey, "at least a quarter of those who go to college aren't sure of what they want, so many drop out. A year or so of service can help them get their heads straight."

Clinton initially became enthusiastic about national service through his participation in the Democratic Leadership Council. Will Marshall of the D.L.C.'s think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, offers several other reasons for concentrating on high school graduates. "First," says Marshall, "the opportunity costs to the economy are lower. If a college grad delays taking a regular private-sector job, society loses the tax receipts of his labor. Second, since most high school graduates would live at home and are unmarried, we'd be spared the ancillary housing and child-care costs the program aims to pay for. Third, job displacement is less likely. You don't want to put current wage earners on the street because national servants cost an employer less."

During a morning jog with McCurdy last Friday, Clinton confirmed what others have said, that his emphasis on aiding students after college derives in part from his desire to assuage middle-class voters upset with his breaking his promise to lower their taxes. Fair enough, but more middle-class families would receive help if their children joined the program after high school, as a confidential transition memorandum pointed out. The President ought to reread that memo and change course.