This is tedious, but somebody should drive a stake through the heart of this newspaper's coverage of economics, especially the Federal budget. We are provoked by Lori Montgomery's latest breathless hysteria about budget deficits, which leads to a headline attacking Obama. In fact, one of the candidate's limited number (ahem) of redeeming qualities has been a disinclination to give over to deficit delirium.

Let's follow the bouncing bullshit. Montgomery (LR) in italics:

On the campaign trail, Sen. Barack Obama bashes President Bush for "reckless" economic policies that are "mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt." But the Democratic presidential candidate has adopted a key component of Bush's fiscal policy: A novel bookkeeping method that guarantees that the $9.5 trillion national debt will get much bigger.

The "novel bookeeping method" in question is a comparison of Obama's proposals to the Bush administration's avowed determination for its tax cuts to remain in place indefinitely. (In fact, as the article indicates, McCain's proposals are worse than Bush policy, so the comparison in question concedes some points to McCain.) Most numbers only make sense in comparison to something else. By the way, the "9.5 trillion" is gross debt and includes money the Gov owes to itself (the Social Security Trust Fund). As such, the number is completely unrevealing of the extent to which the Gov must go the taxpayer for year-to-year expenses, which is sort of the point.

Democrats in Congress have vowed to preserve the Bush tax cuts only if they can cover the cost and keep the budget in balance.

Really? The Dems budget resolution acquieses in -- fails to prevent -- the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Measured against current law and against the promises of his fellow Democrats, Obama would rack up huge deficits.

Everyone knows current law is unsustainable, a point LR makes herself later ("the CBO baseline is out of step with reality") in the article. So how relevant is it that compared to an improbable scenario, the Obama deficits are "huge"? And how huge is huge? Where is Rodney Dangerfield when we need him?

According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.

What's the denominator, Muffin? If you can't think of a number to scale this to, you are just babbling. (Incidentally the Post's accompanying charts are headlined "National Debt" whereas the actual numbers being shown on the vertical scale are deficits, not debt.)

By adopting Bush's bookkeeping system, Obama has frustrated deficit hawks who say government should live within its means, especially given a new White House forecast that the next president will face a record $482 billion deficit during his first year in office. Obama also appears to undercut congressional Democrats who have made pay-as-you-go budgeting a central tenet of their leadership, insisting that new policies should be paid for instead of adding to the nation's debt.

Frustrated deficit hawks? Who gives a shit? These are the dudes LR quotes later saying: ""Leaving some of the tax cuts in place would cost us a small fortune. . . I don't know that any Blue Dog has a good way to pay for that." So the premise of the headline depends on the criticism of folks who have no proposed remedies.

"[R]ecord $482 billion"? Compared to GDP? Sorry, not even close. "Pay-as-you-go budgeting" as presently adhered to by the Hill Democrats is the notion of matching increases in entitlement spending or decreases in tax revenue to offsets (lower spending and/or higher taxes). So one, it does not include discretionary spending. Two, it applies to changes relative to current law, NOT to repairing the fiscal policies of the past. Three, according to LR's worst case scenario (shown in charts), the Obama deficit way out in 2018 is about $500 billion, not much higher than presently, and much lower as a share of GDP -- about 2.2x%.

[A]fter we've been saying, 'Bush has irresponsible policies we can't afford,' he will be asking us to replace them with different policies we can't afford,' " said a Democratic congressional aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity so he could speak candidly.

Ah, the old blind quote as repressed truth-teller trick. No doubt this person works for another one of those Members of Congress who laments deficits but always votes to increase them.

Privately, some Democrats acknowledge that they may be forced to follow Obama's lead and abandon their pay-as-you-go pledge if they want to keep the Bush tax cuts that benefit the middle class, including a $1,000 child tax credit, a reduction in the marriage penalty and a new 10 percent tax bracket. Beginning in 2011, those provisions will increase the deficit by at least $100 billion a year unless lawmakers can raise the money elsewhere.

Hmm. $100 billion in 2011. What percent of GDP is that? (Answer: six-tenths of one percent.)

According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plans would increase the national debt by at least $5 trillion over the next 10 years. McCain has said he would balance the budget through massive spending cuts.

Which compared to Obama is like, more, and here we are buried halfway through the story, but the headline hits Obama for "ballooning" the deficit.

"Obama has criticized Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, and now he's using Bush's baseline as a yardstick by which to measure fiscal responsibility," said Leonard E. Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "

Lennie, Lennie. You're a great guy, a fine economist, and you rode your freakin bicycle across the country for Haiti. But Obama compares his plans to McCain because THAT'S THE GUY HE'S RUNNING AGAINST. Why not tell LR to say the difference between McCain and Obama is a ten-year deficit change of $1.374 trillion? Or that Obama's ginormous $500 deficit in 2018 is 2.2% of projected GDP, a completely harmless level of borrowing? One director of the Congressional Budget Office is enough!