The New York Times on Friday once again proved itself to have absolutely no clue how budgets work.
In its editorial "Negotiating the Debt Ceiling on a Knife's Edge," the Times - like so many other math-challenged "news" organizations in America today - blamed the current debt ceiling woes on the Bush tax cuts and Republican refusal to raise revenues:
Every fresh report of “progress” on the debt-ceiling talks produces new reasons to feel profoundly uneasy. The talks were misbegotten from the beginning, made necessary only by the irresponsible refusal of Republicans to pay the nation’s bills unless they got everything their way on government spending and taxes.
So the talks were "misbegotten" and only "made necessary" because the Republicans refuse to raise taxes?
This not only requires a willing suspension of arithmetic acumen but also a pre-schooler's knowledge of recent history.
The Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House for two years. In only one of those years did they propose a budget.
They chose to completely abdicate this responsibility in 2010 due to fears whatever they offered would hurt them at the polls.
What the Times and all of its Obama-loving brethren in the press have been ignoring is that this situation we're facing today was brought on by the failure of the Party they support to address this matter well before the clock approached midnight.
During his press conference last week, the President joked about his daughters - whatever their ages - getting their homework done a day before its due, and chided Republicans to do the same.
Yet it is him and his Party that have consistently dragged their feet on matters relating to the budget, a fact his press all too gladly continue to give him a pass for as they blame all the nation's fiscal woes on Republicans.
The Times on Friday was more than willing to do its part:
It is already clear that the Republicans have succeeded spectacularly in their insistence that the agreement be mostly about spending cuts rather than building back the money lost from the Bush tax cuts that was the principal cause of the deficit.
Ah yes. Our deficit problem is all because of the Bush tax cuts.
It has absolutely nothing to do with a 41 percent increase in spending since the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007.
The final Republican-created and Bush signed fiscal 2007 budget spent only $2.73 trillion. If we spent that this year, with projected tax receipts of $2.57 trillion, our budget would practically be balanced.
If the Democrats had only raised spending at the rate of inflation, the 2011 deficit would be $370 billion and we'd be nowhere near the debt ceiling.
Nevermind such inconvenient truths, Times readers. In the Gray Lady's strange world, eliminating the Bush tax cuts - which might raise $379 billion a year - completely wipes out a $1.5 trillion deficit.
Isn't it funny that the same people who accuse conservatives of being anti-science because they don't believe carbon dioxide is destroying the planet are anti-math?
And they have the nerve to call us the know-nothings.