You'd never know from reading today's New York Times that last year's health care reform legislation will reduce the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Here's the Times:

Invoking the mantra of fiscal restraint that has dominated House action since lawmakers reconvened last month, Republicans began committee work this week on two bills that would greatly expand restrictions on financing for and access to abortions.

…

Over and over, Democrats said that by bringing up the abortion issue now, Republicans were going back on their word to focus on the budget.

Yet the bills that have surfaced on the House floor this year have been fiscal in nature, including the repeal of the health care law, which was later rejected by the Senate, and some measures designed to cut spending.

Got that? The “mantra of fiscal restraint” has dominated House action this year, and Democratic criticism of Republicans for going back on their promises to reduce the deficit is unfounded because the GOP's proposals, like health care repeal, “have been fiscal in nature.”

One little problem: Repealing health care reform would have increased the deficit.

Don't take my word for it: Here's what the New York Times reported on February 2:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that repealing the health care law would add more than $230 billion to federal deficits between 2012 and 2021.

The Republicans' attempt to repeal health care was “fiscal in nature,” all right -- but its fiscal impact would have been to drive up deficits. The New York Times knows this. So why is it now pretending that the repeal effort is consistent with the GOP's “mantra of fiscal restraint”?

Previously:

Why Is The New York Times Touting Paul Ryan's Fiscal Credibility?

Why is the New York Times helping Joe Lieberman lie about health care?