http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#06_02_03_0819 Tuesday, June 3 2003
PROFESSOR PAUL: Paul Krugman is without question the most dishonest pundit in America. I keep vowing to stop writing about his columns, but then I wake up two times every week to see that he's reached a new low.
Today Krugman offers a sweeping indictment of the Bush administration for continually misleading the public. (Pause here to clear throat from the choking hypocrisy). I'll skip over Krugman's way, way, way overstated case on WMD's and get straight to the tax cut issue. Krugman says:
"the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes."
Well, we know the eight million children Krugman refers to are members of families who already don't pay any federal income taxes. Krugman also doesn't cite the income level of the 50 million households who get nothing. Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, he drops the conspicuously vague phrase, "a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes."
Why does Krugman use this phrase instead of citing a statistic to support his case here? C'mon Paul, you're an economics professor for God's sake, you should know the numbers. Is it because Krugman is really referring to people who pay the payroll tax (not federal income tax) but he doesn't want to admit it?
Here's another good question: how is one of the most liberal, hyper-partisan, and misleading "pundits" in America also able to double as "respected" Professor of Economics at one of the country's most elite learning institutions?
John and I are both Princeton alums and we've had to suffer the indignity of our alma mater employing the likes of Peter Singer and Cornel West (twice), but Krugman is even more of a stain on the institution. Economics is, after all, supposed to be a somewhat objective discipline and the university does its reputation no favors by letting a partisan political pundit be the star of its program.
If I were still at school I'd gather up the five other conservatives on campus and stage a serious protest. But that's just me.
Very nice post. Thanks.