Some Thoughts on Clintonian Ethics : Transition: Too high a cost of service leaves government to the special interests and the wealthy.

President-elect Clinton’s attempt to elevate ethics to a new high may play well in Peoria, but it is not good public policy. Consider the proposed five-year ban on post-employment contacts and lifetime bar on representing certain foreign interests.

Among the benefits of our citizen government, as opposed to career civil bureaucracies, is the infusion of new ideas into the public arena from the private sector. The private sector is similarly enriched through a better understanding by those who have been in public service.

Identifying candidates for Cabinet posts is not a problem. Because of the prestige, people are prepared to make sacrifices. The same is not true for sub-Cabinet positions. Attracting competent people with proven expertise is becoming more difficult. There already are disincentives: loss of income; relocation to Washington and, in all likelihood, a higher cost of living; loss of financial privacy, and the prospect of contentious confirmation hearings.

Having survived the appointments process, the appointee enters a thicket of rules and regulations designed to protect the integrity of the decision-maker but that also poses a trap for the unwary. For those who intend to make a difference, participation in controversial policy decisions will give rise to attacks from special-interest groups, agency investigations and the opportunity for atonement before congressional committees. These have become the everyday hazards of public service.

Now, on top of all that comes the proposal for extending the ban on post-employment contacts, to prevent “cashing in.” Forget for the moment that the plan’s predicate is more anecdotal than empirical; the effect will be a decline in the quality of appointees. The effect will be a lowering in the quality of appointees. Who will be willing to serve?

* The “independently wealthy,” unaffected by loss in income or post-employment restrictions.

* The “content neutral,” without substantive private sector experience and for whom government service will provide their best payday.

* The “special-interest committed,” willing to pursue their causes at any cost.

The net result will be a less able and less responsive government. As Ross Perot might say, “Think about it.”