Krugman calls out NYT piece hyping Paul Ryan

[ProSense]

Kid Gloves

Oy. So the Times has a profile of Paul Ryan, sort of — you’ll notice that there is hardly any information about what’s actually in his plan. What we get is:

Paul Krugman, the New York Times Op-Ed columnist, recently derided Mr. Ryan as a “flimflam man,” arguing that the tax cuts in his plan would ultimately make the debt worse.

Is that remotely an adequate summary of what I said? I don’t think so. And notice, by the way, that the tax cut problem is implicitly presented as some kind of long-run issue, when the reality is that it turns the plan into a deficit-increasing venture from day one.

But what really bothered me was this:

Let’s leave aside for now the debate over the viability of the road map, which, as a practical matter, doesn’t stand a chance of being enacted as is, anyway. The more pertinent question is whether Mr. Ryan is the kind of guy who just wants to make a point — or whether his road map represents the starting point in what could be a serious negotiation about entitlements and spending.

That’s completely wrong-headed. My experience — very much based on Bush 2000 — is that a politician’s policy proposals offer the best clue to what “kind of guy” he is. Back then, all the professional political reporters were hanging out with W and reporting what a swell guy he was, while I was looking at the flimflam in his tax and Social Security plans, and reaching the conclusion that he was a scammer. Who was right?

<...>

So what kind of guy is he? Based on his plan (and, since my article, on the dust clouds he’s been throwing up in an attempt to confuse the issue), he’s the kind of guy with whom you can’t have an honest discussion.