Earlier, I noted that the Washington Post's article about President Obama's proposed budget adopts Republican-friendly framing. It's striking how much better the New York Times' article is.

Unlike the Post, the Times makes clear that the budget simply allows the Bush tax cuts for those making at least $250,000 a year to expire as scheduled. (Though the Times does not spell out that the schedule was put in place by Bush himself.)

Unlike the Post, which simply quotes, paraphrases, and previews GOP attacks on Obama for the size of the deficit, the Times notes that “more than half the debt stems from policies enacted when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.”

And take a look at how the two papers put the size of the deficit in context:

Washington Post:

To stabilize the debt, many economists say, the government should run annual deficits of no more than 3 percent of the overall economy, a target the White House has told key lawmakers it hopes to hit by 2015. But under Obama's new budget blueprint, deficits would sink no lower than 3.9 percent of the economy and begin to rise again by 2020.

New York Times:

A $1.6 trillion deficit for this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, would be about $150 billion greater than the shortfall in 2009, which was the highest since World War II. It would equal almost 11 percent of the gross domestic product. Economists generally consider anything above 3 percent to be unsustainable over the long haul, although many say it is a necessary evil at a time of deep economic distress.

The Times article could certainly benefit from additional detail, but it's far better than the Post's treatment of the question, which completely ignores the fact that economists think larger deficits are necessary during tough economic times.