DeLong on the Terrible Washington Post Budget Story

Isn't it worth stating--somewhere in the first ten paragraphs--that the Bush budget number for 2009 omits about $160 billion in costs that the administration is on record as favoring?

Isn't the fact that the Bush budget limits itself to five years--to 2009--rather than the ten years of Clinton budgets, and limits itself to five years for a reason, worth a mention somewhere in the first ten paragraphs?

Isn't the fact that extending the Bush tax cuts would blow an annual $250 billion hole in the budget in the 2009-2012 presidential term worth mentioning in the first ten paragraphs--not in paragraph 26?

Shouldn't the article say somewhere in its first ten paragraphs that $400 billion in 2009 and $700 billion by 2014 are better forecasts of the deficit that would be produced by the policies the Bush administration advocates?

And isn't it worth turning to--as the Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray does--page 183 of the Analytical Perspectives volume to pick out the quote that "Long-run budget projections show clearly that the [federal] budget is on an unsustainable path"?