<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><title>HotAir</title><link>https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/11/21/krugmans-twinkie-defense/feed/</link><description>HotAir is the leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary covering the Biden administration, politics, media, culture, and current elections.</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 01:33:32 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>Krugman's Twinkie defense</title><description>&lt;![CDATA[Hmm.  Something seems off here. Did this super-rich hundredth-of-the-1% in the ’50s really a) pay anything near those super-high 91% marginal rates, or did they b) employ accountants and loopholes to avoid them (as the conventional tax-reformer wisdom would have it)? If you read Krugman’s paragraph you’d probably conclude (a)–high income tax rates really sock it to the rich! But the truth is closer to (b).]]&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:10:36 -0500</pubDate><creator xmlns="dc">&lt;![CDATA[Allahpundit]]&gt;</creator><enclosure url="" type="image/jpeg" length="123" /><link>https://hotair.com/headlines/2012/11/21/krugmans-twinkie-defense-n97681</link></item></channel></rss>