As Clinton promised in his campaign, he wanted to provide the financial opportunity to attend college to a broad range of young Americans in exchange for National Service. Along with the National Service legislation Clinton wanted to include a pay-as-you-can loan program that would encourage graduates to enter lower paying jobs such as teachers and police officers, which are more fulfilling and give back to the community and nation. From there the Office of National Service was off to build the framework for the legislation. They began analyzing the current system, and surveying local programs and organizations to see what would work, and how exactly Clinton’s campaign promise might actually become a viable piece of legislation that might make it through the congressional circus, not to mention the scrutiny of the private sector.

As shown throughout Waldman’s book crunching numbers became the name of the game for the Office of National Service. In order to gain support from the Democrats the policy just had to be legitimate, they would most likely go with their party and the President. The Republicans on the other hand had to be won over. Even a good piece of legislation could lose support just due to party lines. On top of that everyone who this bill would eventually effect would want to voice his or her opinion and would be fighting to get the wavering members of congress to vote in their favor. The numbers the ONS was concerned with included the amount of votes necessary to get the legislation passed along with the members of Congress who were “in the bag” as voting for the legislation, how many were on the line and how many were dead set against it. Putting these numbers into perspective made it look as though getting this legislation passed would be a close call. In order to sway the “fence sitters” in favor of the legislation some compromises would be made. For instance, Ted Stevens of Alaska brought six amendments to the plan to the floor, knowing it was probable that the Office of National Service would compromise on those issues to win his vote. Here some questions arise: When does appeasing special interests become too much? Where should the ONS draw the line, should they give in to most reasonable suggested amendments in order to get their bill passed? When does amending the legislation become so much that it no longer represents the greater good of the American people, and is this alright if everyone is happy with the redefined legislation and it passes?

In the end the legislation was passed, yet it was barely recognizable as the twenty-six-page explanation that had been handed out at the unveiling (130). Millions of dollars had been spent to prepare the National Service legislation. On July 31st 1995, not even ten months after the start of AmeriCorps, the National Service Bill in action, the House voted to eliminate the program, two months later the Senate also voted against it, ending the program (249). This simple fact is enough to make one question was it worth all of the time and money spent to push the bill through to have it defeated less than a year later? Could the money have been better spent to improve existing programs? Would the program have been su

Some topics in this essay:
National Service, Service Bill, President Republicans, Service ONS, Congress Winning, Service Legislation, national service, GI Bill, Service Clinton, Eli Segal, Service Office, office national service, office national, national service legislation, service legislation, legislation passed, service program, party lines, service national service, gain support, pay attention, national service program, gi bill, piece legislation, national service national,