In an editorial concerning the president's domestic agenda {"Really, No Agenda," Nov. 27}, The Post did serious injustice to the notion of empowerment.

After first deriding the concept as overly roseate, the editorial went on to suggest that such a policy, if pursued, would be inconsistent with the president's deficit-reduction efforts. Indeed, the only redeeming value the editorial could find in empowerment was the hope that it might involve "putting up more money" for social welfare programs.

In fact the basic principle behind empowerment, in accordance with traditional conservative standards, is less government spending. As a member of the Georgetown University College Republicans, I know that by shifting economic power away from the wasteful hands of the bureaucracy and into the pockets of the underclass, empowerment hopes to make the poor less dependent upon the welfare state. A recent proposal in Wisconsin, for example, has sought to extend tuition vouchers to low-income families so as to make it possible for their children to attend private institutions. By providing disadvantaged students with the opportunity to receive a better education, the proposal hopes to break the vicious cycle of poverty that begins with a less than standard education. According to empowerment theory (and common logic), if students can receive a solid schooling in their youth, they will be more likely to improve their own economic condition when they enter society as adults.

Empowerment does not reflect, as The Post suggested, a lack of imagination in the Bush administration. Should President Bush choose to make it the central issue of his domestic agenda, he would be demonstrating a considerable degree of political innovation. The fact that The Post and other liberal institutions still cannot conceive of social service programs without massive government spending only serves to demonstrate the originality of the proposal. If pursued, empowerment may well prove to be yet another area in which Republicans show themselves to be more progressive than their counterparts in the Democratic Party. BRYANT MORRIS Washington