Recently in National Service Category

My profound thanks to every person who has worn the uniform of this nation. Your sacrifice is a gift.

I hope that in the coming years this nation and its government will treat all of our 24.5 million Veterans better and live up to the promises made when these brave men and women agreed to serve.

Christopher Lee reports on another example of how this White House fails to back up its nice words with real action:

The House denied $100 million sought for AmeriCorps yesterday, a move that backers of the program said would wipe out thousands of volunteers across the country and scuttle the community service efforts that President Bush says he supports.

We have seen just how effective this president can be when he choses to lobby for a priority. One wonders why he won't use those skills on anything but irresponsible tax cuts for the affluent and wars for which our country was unprepared to handle the aftermath?

Thomas Oliphant adds his observations about President Bush's broken promise to expand national service.

Only in America could an explosion of patriotic interest in national service be met by a national administration whose indifference has been exceeded only by its incompetence.

What began this year as a laudable willingness by President Bush to support a major increase in support for the volunteers of AmeriCorps is for the moment barely treading water and may still face deep cutbacks.

The problem was caused by epic bungling on the part of Bush's National Service Corp. appointees, and it has been exacerbated all year by the president's failure to put an ounce or two of his clout on the line to fix it.

Remember, government budgets are not just about numbers. They are a reflection of priorities.

When it came time to pass an irresponsible tax cut, President Bush was there to spend some of his political capital. He has been notably absent, however, when it comes to fulfilling this promise.

I think that says much about this administration's horribly misplaced policy priorities.

You must excuse Jonathan Alter if he feels a bit betrayed by President Bush. After all, he actually thought the president meant it when he spoke during the State of the Union message about the importance of national service and promised to expand its funding. He observes:

It’s still hard for me to imagine that George and Laura Bush don’t care about what happens to the programs they’ve been trumpeting all over the country. But Ari Fleischer was noncommittal about restoring AmeriCorps to its current size with a measly $185 million supplemental appropriation (about one half of 1 percent of the latest tax cut). Actually expand-ing AmeriCorps from 50,000 to 75,000 corps members to fulfill Bush’s promise seems unlikely. Under pressure last week, Congress—with the backing of the president—passed a stopgap bill that straightens out a confusing accounting squabble but still leaves AmeriCorps with a 58 percent cut and tens of thousands fewer participants. That’s a lot of idealistic young people who have already signed up for this fall and will now be told they can’t serve their country.

How did this happen? Alter explains:

Who’s to blame? Radical Republicans in the House and a president who doesn’t get down deep enough into the messy details of policymaking to follow through. That’s the generous interpretation. The more cynical view is that Bush is a lip-service president who makes “compassionate conservative” promises and even signs bills in the Rose Garden with great flourish—then walks away. Exhibit A is the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, which imposes a series of costly accountability mandates on the education system (many of them commendable) without providing the resources to implement them. The congressional appropriation is $8 billion short of what Bush asked for.

As Alter notes, Bush is so powerful that he could sway Congress if he cared to do so. The fact that he refuses to fight for these promises speaks volumes about this Administration's misplaced priorities and misguided values.