Robert Samuelson December 15, 2013

The budget package crafted by Democratic Sen. Patty Murray andRepublican Rep. Paul Ryan — heads of the Senate and House BudgetCommittees — recalls political scientist Charles E. Lindblom’s famous1959 essay, “The Science of ‘Muddling Through.’” Wrote Lindblom: “Democracies change their policies almost entirelythrough incremental adjustments. Policy does not move in leaps andbounds.” People stick with what they know. Transformational(“non-incremental”) changes are usually “politically impossible” and,when they’re not, are “unpredictable in their consequences.”

More than a half-century later, Lindblom’s insights endure. Justlook around. Obamacare demonstrates the perils of transformationalpolicies — heir unpredictability. And the Murray-Ryan accord is a triumph of incrementalism, a.k.a. “muddling through.” Okay, let’sacknowledge their accomplishment. The agreement beats the alternative,which might be another senseless government “shutdown” (actually, only a partial shutdown). But the price of peace is doing almost nothing about our long-term budget problems.

Recall: The central issue is themismatch between government’s spending promises and its willingness totax. Although the Great Recession hurt, it’s not the crux of the matter. From 1973 to 2012, the budget was in surplus only four years. During this period, spending averaged 21 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) and taxes averaged 18 percent. Retiring babyboomers are now raising Social Security and Medicare spending and — ifnothing is done — deficits.

But do what? Democrats won’t cut retiree benefits; Republicans reject tax increases. The rest of the budget (the 36 percent that includes defense and “discretionary” programs such as the FBI,school lunches and environmental regulation) has borne most cuts. In2011, the Budget Control Act reduced this spending by imposing annualcaps. When Congress couldn’t agree on further changes, it triggered“sequestration”: automatic cuts to the same spending.

NowCongress can’t stomach sequestration. Republicans worry that themilitary is being savaged. Training has been cut, weapons purchasesdelayed, force sizes reduced. By 2021, American fighting forces may shrink by about 25 percent from 2012 levels, estimates the Bipartisan PolicyCenter. Democrats fear that domestic programs are being gutted. A report from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, lists some concerns: fewer meat inspectors andforest firefighters; less spending on Head Start and the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention.

The Murray-Ryan plan aims to relieve this sequestration misery. It does this by increasing authorized spending by $45 billion in 2014 and $18 billion in 2015, split between defenseand non- defense programs. To pay for the increases, the plan would,among other things: lower pension benefits for federal workers andmilitary retirees; raise fees for airport security and premiums forfederal pension guarantees; and reduce payments to states from mineralleasing.

There’s no pretense of dealing with the underlyingmismatch between taxes and spending. In 2014 and 2015, budget deficitsincrease slightly (a good thing, say some economists). The claim thatthe package would provide a small amount of deficit reduction over adecade is dubious; most of the reduction occurs in 2022 and 2023 and reflects assumptions that can be instantly reversed. The broadermessage is that annual deficits would continue indefinitely; “thecurrent [upward] trajectory of the debt” would not change, says thenonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

All this is in the best tradition of muddling. Hardly anyone wants toconfront truly difficult questions. How big a government do we want?What groups or causes deserve help? Which don’t? How high can taxes gowithout harming the economy? For decades, Congress and presidents havedodged these and other hard issues through chronic and expedientdeficits. Rhetoric aside, they’re staying with what they know, asLindblom foretold.

But there’s a problem. Lindblom’s common-sense insight has a giant exception: crises. Change, forced by outsideevents, then happens by “leaps and bounds.” The recent financial crisiscaused Congress and two presidents to embrace measures (the rescue ofbig banks, General Motors and Chrysler) that were unthinkable a fewmonths earlier. In the 1960s, civil rights demonstrations pushedCongress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that, in outlawing mostpublic racial discrimination, wasn’t “incremental.” History offers other examples, including the Civil War, the New Deal and both World Wars.Small changes won’t suffice when big changes are required.

On thebudget, muddling through comes with a crucial assumption. It is thatcontinuous deficits won’t provoke a crisis that compels politicalleaders to take harsh steps that they would otherwise not take. Thisoptimism may be justified. For decades, “experts” have warned of thedire consequences of unchecked deficits. Yet no great crisis hasoccurred. But this conviction also could be complacency. Government debt is in territory that, except for wartime debt, is unprecedented. Wedon’t know the consequences. Someday, we may no longer have the luxuryof muddling through.

Read more from Robert Samuelson’s archive.