I have to say that Paul Krugman made a very strong case that the young GOPer is still drinking supply-side Kool-Aid. But it's somewhat unfair to say he opposes any revenue increases. Here's the Roadmap itself:

Claim: The Roadmap does not bring in the amount of revenue specified to the CBO according to the Tax Policy Center, and therefore it does not reduce the deficit as is claimed. (pg. 2)

Reality: The Tax Policy Center does not give official revenue estimates, and in their analysis admit to significant uncertainty and unfamiliarity with a proposal of this size and scope. The tax reforms proposed and the rates specified were designed to maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP, based on consultation with the Treasury Department.

Congressman Ryan stands by his numbers, and of course would be open to adjustments in the specified rates under his tax reforms if in fact TPC’s estimates are closer to reality than Ryan’s estimates. We clearly cannot chase our unsustainable growth in spending with ever-higher levels of taxes – and the purpose of the Roadmap is to get spending in line with revenue – not the other way around.

I remain pretty much persuaded by Krugman's broad critique, however. Cutting taxes at this point in American history, in the face of this much debt, strikes me as loony. Revenue will have to come from somewhere if the debt is to be tackled. And defense will need to take a real cut as well. Serious fiscal conservatives will acknowledge this. The others are dreaming.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.