Guess who’s now in favor of a government shutdown?  The New York Times editorial board urges the White House to stand firm against any further cuts to the federal budget in the rump FY2011 budget past the $10.5 billion already offered by Senate Democrats — some of which are hardly new cuts anyway.  Otherwise, the Gray Lady’s lead editorial instructs, Republicans will do “enormous damage” and “threaten[] a recovery” with their supposedly massive and reckless spending cuts:

After letting a highly destructive budget fight fester far too long, the White House finally stepped in late last week to negotiate with the House, which wants to eviscerate nondefense spending. Senate leaders still seem shell-shocked by that breathtaking ruthlessness, and have pleaded with the administration for help in pushing back. The White House needs to do so, and firmly.

“Eviscerate”?  Let’s take a look at the numbers, shall we?  Discretionary spending accounts for $1.3 trillion of the $3.7 trillion budget in FY2011.  The House bill cuts $61 billion of it, which amounts to 1.6% of overall spending, and 4.7% of discretionary spending.  Considering that Democrats increased this part of the budget by 24% since taking control of Congress in 2007, one might think that a rather reasonable readjustment.  Even if we’re talking about “non-defense” discretionary spending, we’re only reducing spending in that area by about 10% (13.6% if referring to “non-security” discretionary spending).  Either way, it doesn’t even undo the massive Democratic spending spree of the last four years.

What would happen if those cuts took place?  The Times predicts an apocalypse, of course:

Republicans claim they will not agree on a penny less than $61 billion, which is too little for some more aggressive freshmen. If the Democrats try to compromise on even half that amount, they will be still be doing enormous damage to many programs and threatening a recovery that is starting to show signs of real life.

At least the Times implicitly admits that Barack Obama lied when he claimed to have met Republicans halfway on budget cuts.  But again, the numbers just don’t hold up.  The Republican cuts amount to 7.8% of Obama’s Porkulus spending, which turned out to have little effect on the economy or on job creation.  Reducing spending by less than one-twelfth of a Porkulus would have even less negative impact on the economy.  Nor does this editorial ever explain what it means by “enormous damage to many programs”.  The editors never mention a single program or the damage less spending will do to it.

The editors then make the argument that conservatives have been making:

There is nothing wrong with having a serious negotiation over long-term cuts, many of which are reasonable and necessary. It is vitally important, in fact, that the two sides begin examining ways to curb the huge growth in entitlement spending, particularly Medicare. House Speaker John Boehner said last week that he was ready to start that conversation, echoing similar calls from President Obama and many others in Washington.

But serious cuts cannot be made against the threat of a shutdown. That discussion should be had over the 2012 budget, not what’s left of the 2011 fiscal year.

Entitlement reforms have to be made through statutory changes, not budget bills, so this is essentially meaningless anyway.  We have to wait for FY2012 for that reason, because Congress has to rewrite law to enact those reforms.  So because we need to wait on entitlement programs for the 2012 budget, the entire discretionary spending portion of a budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit should be ignored?

And have Democrats in Wisconsin heard that serious budget debate shouldn’t take place “against the threat of a shutdown”?

The Times concludes by demanding a shutdown anyway to fight those budget cuts in what can only be called a fit of pique:

Mr. Biden and the Senate should make it clear to the freshman House members who are really driving their chamber’s position that they will not permit reckless cuts this year. Then let the freshmen explain to an angry public why they closed the government’s doors to score ideological points.

In other words, Biden and Reid should refuse to discuss any further cuts, and should shut down the government rather than reduce overall government spending by a grand whopping total of 1.6% and put a minuscule 3.8% dent in a $1.6 trillion deficit.  Then when the shutdown occurs, the Times recommends that Biden and Reid let House freshman explain that the Democrats refused to touch 98.4% of federal spending and think that a $1.6 trillion deficit is so good that they’re willing to shut down the government to keep it intact.

Yeah, that’s a good strategy.  Let’s see how that works out.