Clinton Focus Should Be Leaner Government

Patrick Lee’s article, “The Potholes in Public Works Programs” (Nov. 15), brought up many issues that are not only tremendous challenges for the new Clinton Administration, but which are hard-hitting issues with possible negative effects for many Southern Californians.

There is no doubt that the United States cannot ignore its aging infrastructure. However, our large national debt has left the country without an economic cushion, thus making it more difficult to further increase the deficit in order to pull the country out of an economic decline. So the question is whether or not Bill Clinton’s proposed $20-billion expenditure will be a large-enough shock to the system and whether or not it will do more harm than good.

I agree with David Luberoff of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard in his assessment that infrastructure spending is a vague goal with no distinction between a good or a bad investment.

I believe Clinton is being overly optimistic in planning on raising sufficient funds through new taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and balancing out the expense with defense cuts. Unless displaced defense industry workers are hired to work on infrastructure projects, the continued defense cuts and subsequent layoffs will undoubtedly lead to an increase in California’s already high unemployment rate.

Perhaps Clinton would be wise to follow the lead of corporate America and make a great effort to overhaul the structure and culture of government operations toward some semblance of efficiency.

While I agree that an improved infrastructure is much needed, I find tremendous increases in government expenditure--given the size of the deficit--difficult to swallow without assurance that the money will be spent wisely and projects carried out with efficiency.

DIANNE SAKUDA

Pacific Palisades