Yeah, I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. Krugman got a lot of flak, from myself and others, when he claimed a Wall Street Journal editorial advocated raising taxes on the poor. To make a long story short, the Journal asked that Bush not remove more people from the tax rolls altogether (something he's since ignored.)

While poking around Krugman's own Web site this weekend, I came across this entry, where Krugman tries to make $100 by offering up dirt on himself.

If you scroll down to "Excessive current income" you'll find the following statement.

I won't tell you my salary at either Princeton or the Times. But they are both very nice. Combined with royalties on my textbook with Maury Obstfeld, International Economics, which is in its 6th edition - it's the leading textbook in the field - and my wife's salary (she also teaches at Princeton), I am definitely comfortable. Hey, it's OK to make money as long as it's not based on exploiting insider status, and as long as you pay your proper share of taxes. My wife and I hope to be even more comfortable when the principles textbook we're writing starts to yield royalties. [emphasis added]

There's no doubt that the poor, many of whom pay no federal income taxes, are not paying their "proper share."

Therefore, Krugman is advocating raising taxes on the poorest Americans.

Sound like a stretch? Maybe. But the logic is exactly the same as Krugman used when assessing the Journal's "Lucky Duckies" editorial.