THE DEFICIT: A LOOK AT THE BRIGHT SIDE: Review

The most upset of all will be those purveyors of conventional wisdom who are convinced that the persistence of deficits shows our system is in shameful tatters and in dire need of sweeping constitutional reform. To Mr. [Joseph White] and Mr. [Aaron Wildavsky], the evidence shows other things. First, an awful lot has been done to reduce deficits, something very easy to forget until it is recounted to us in detail. They note that Congress ''stopped the defense buildup, passed two substantial tax hikes (mostly on businesses), created a growing Social Security surplus, cut Medicare providers, squeezed and then Gramm-Rudmaned the domestic discretionary budget.'' EVEN so, big deficits persisted. Why? Basically because bigger questions overshadowed them. ''You might say that the participants in budgeting agree on everything except how much revenue should be raised and who should pay, how much should be spent and which programs should benefit. Whether balance is achieved at low or high levels of spending would determine the future shape of our government, and our politicians quite reasonably act as if that is as important as the deficit itself.'' ''Politicians of the center,'' they say, ''have come to see the deficit as a symbol of their own inadequacy. Having made elimination of the deficit the test of their ability to govern, they have come to see the deficit as a crisis because they cannot solve it, not because of any harm it causes.'' Be cool, the authors advise. Set a modest and achievable deficit-reduction goal, achieve it, declare victory and move on to more productive things. As President Bush, White House budget director Richard G. Darman, Speaker of the House Thomas S. Foley, Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell and their colleagues proceed to do battle again this year, and as the usual kibitzers prepare to second-guess them, they would all be well served to take time out to read this book and heed its advice.