When New York Times columnist Paul Krugman makes a particularly outrageous assertion, it seems to find its way out from behind the TimesSelect curtain and onto the rest of the Internet. On Jan. 30, Krugman made just such an assertion, but to see the claim in a simpler light, check out Donald Luskin's analogy:

Try to imagine this scene taking place in the ivied halls of Princeton University. Economics professor Paul Krugman — who happens also to be America’s looniest liberal pundit — has decided it’s time to ask for a raise. So he marches into the office of Princeton president Shirley M. Tilghman and makes his demand.

“I was hired in September, 2000,” Krugman says. “I’ve been making $250,000 a year for six years. It’s time for a raise."

Tilghman says, “Okay, let’s make it $300,000 a year. And a reserved parking place for your very old Volvo, too.”

“What?” Krugman screams. “I asked for a raise and you gave me an 80 percent pay cut! And by the way, I ride my bike to school whenever I can.”

“But Dr. Krugman,” Tilghman ventures timidly. “Isn’t $300,000 a 20 percent raise from $250,000?”

“I’m an economics professor,” Krugman shoots back. “So let me straighten you out. $250,000 for six years is $1.5 million. And the $300,000 you are offering me is 80 percent less than that! You call that a raise?”

“Surely, professor,” Tilghman says, scarcely believing what she’s hearing, “you can’t compare all six years of your prior earnings to just the one year that I’m talking about.”

In an attempt to distance Democrats from the tainted machinations of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, that's exactly what Krugman does -- comparing nearly 10 years of pre-Abramoff donations to just 3 1/2 years of Abramoff-era donations. I encourage you to read the entire thing to see the lengths to which Democrats will go to paint this as an all-Republican scandal. (Frankly, it should be bad enough that it's a mostly-Republican scandal, but the Democrats foolishly distract from that fact when they try to portray themselves as holier than thou.)

On a related note: Public Editor Byrone Calame once again demonstrates that he's far worse than his predecessor, Daniel Okrent.