Harvard professor explains that his calling is all about the money

Not that Greg Mankiw's position should surprise you. He was, after all, one of the advisors to the architects of the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" era. In short, nothing much different than the Voodoo economics of the right-wing's masterbatory icon, Ronnie Raygun. 

AN important issue dividing the political parties is whether to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year. Democrats say these taxpayers can afford to chip in a bit more. Republicans say raising taxes on those who already face the highest marginal tax rates will hurt the economy. 

So I thought it might be useful to do a case study on one of these high-income taxpayers. Fortunately, I have one handy: me. 

Yeah, I had the same thought. This isn't the slightest bit objective or scientific. In fact, it isn't even good opinion. It is, however, excellent bird-cage liner. As one moves through the piece there is one guarantee: somewhere, maybe more than once, the camouflage will fall off a fact.
Oh look! There's one now!

First, the corporation in which I have invested pays a 35 percent corporate tax on its earnings.

Ummm. No. An explanation for the good professor lies over at Balloon Juice.

Then TBogg releases the hounds.

Added: And just in case you didn't catch the hypocrisy, the professor kills his own argument.  While he expounds on the virtue of the myth of "trickle down" economics as the basis for his position he clearly states that he isn't going to spend anything extra that tax cuts provide. He's going to save it for his kids. The whole premise for Bush tax cuts for the rich is that they would spend everything they did not turn over in taxes. Keeping it is unpatriotic.

Economist fail.