How can liberalism’s favorite economist know so little about the topic he is known for?  New York Times economist, Paul Krugman had this to say in today’s op-ed regarding the Twinkie situation…

Consider the question of tax rates on the wealthy. The modern American right, and much of the alleged center, is obsessed with the notion that low tax rates at the top are essential to growth. Remember that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, charged with producing a plan to curb deficits, nonetheless somehow ended up listing “lower tax rates” as a “guiding principle.”

Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today...

… Along the way, however, we’ve forgotten something important — namely, that economic justice and economic growth aren’t incompatible. America in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share; it gave workers the power to bargain for decent wages and benefits; yet contrary to right-wing propaganda then and now, it prospered. And we can do that again.

Yes, because business will certainly prosper with an added burden of a 91% tax rate on the wealthy, and a corporate rate double what it is today.  It will surely create a scenario where wealthy business owners and small business owners alike will announce thousand upon thousands of job openings.

It’s no wonder Krugman is heralded as an economic hero in liberal circles.  Reality however, offers a different vantage point.